'1'3‘1 II .VV .. 7._fi.‘_._q__--~.»..-.—-.. THE DEVELOPMENT OF SYSTEMIC CONCEPTS IN COMPARATIVE POLITICAL ANALYSIS: AN EMERGING PARADIGM Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY PHILIP NEAL MARCUS 1969 ' I hifigib This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE DEVELOPMENT OF SYSTEMIC CONCEPTS IN COMPARATIVE POLITICAL ANALYSIS: AN EMERGING PARADIGM presented by Philip Neal Marcus has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Political Science degree in Maj?! professor 64L;V[17;1L7< Data 37 /? /Z§77{ 0-169 a come: even UT: of gener seIf-exa and tent disci pI I' I UIEOI‘E‘LII To IIe eIaCc Structure generaI I'zl ABSTRACT THE DEVELOPMENT OF SYSTEMIC CONCEPTS IN COMPARATIVE POLITICAL ANALYSIS: AN EMERGING PARADIGM By Philip Neal Marcus The development of empirical theory in political science is a common concern. The search for theory unites the discipline even though different theoretical orientations exist. The pursuit of general theory by several particular approaches leads to periodic self-examinations in which prevailing paradigms are reconsidered and tentative steps taken to formulate synthetic paradigms. The discipline is presently engaged in such a re-examination of existing theoretical frameworks. To develop empirical theory in political science requires the elaboration of criteria to evaluate existing theory. Explanatory structures have grown increasingly complex as intervening layers of generalizations occur between data and theoretical framework. The complexity in theoretical constructs makes validation more difficult, identification of the linkage more loose. and the need for evaluation more difficult. A trend emerging from recent theoretical discussions points to the development of systems concepts as a framework by which to construct an empirical theory of politics. However. before the concept of system can serve the function of inter-relating empirical research and theory. it is necessary to consider several analytical problems. A secondary problem feund in the proposal is the consequence Philip Neal Marcus for the boundaries of social science when a common theoretical framework is adopted. Systems concepts are used to create varieties of systemic frameworks. The indiscrimate use of systemic concepts in political research is complicated by the existing alternative modes of systems analysis. A critical examination of the major varieties of systemic frameworks identifies a typology based upon alternative modes of explanation. The typology is constituted by four types of systemic frameworks: Functional systems, Analogue systems, Specific- performance systems. and problem-solving systems. The types of systems theories are illustrated in a critical examination of the theory and practice derived from each framework. The theoretical writings of Talcott Parsons, David Easton, and Gabriel Almond, as well as various monographic studies, are analyzed. Theoretical orientation toward the concept of system differs within frameworks. Subsequently, different varieties of linkage result between data and hypothesis as different modes of systemic analysis are employed. There are assumptions underlying the different fOci of analysis which must be considered in order to evaluate systemic frameworks and then adopt them for political research. The evaluation of systemic frameworks reveals their utilities for comparative analyses of political systems. A precise evaluation is possible with the use of a systems continuum. Philip Neal Marcus Two criteria are used to construct the continuum: the degree of fOrmalization fbund in the framework, and the degree to which concrete and analytic referents of systems are joined. By means of a critical examination of the analytic statements creating the various systemic frameworks, and locating their position on a systems continuum, the differential utility of the various types of systemic frameworks may be evaluated. To use the concept of system in political research requires a careful exploration of the utilities of systemic frameworks. Research to support the construction of empirical theory in political science oriented around systemic concepts could better proceed by constructing a new systems paradigm for comparative analysis. Rather than select one existing systemic framework and restrict research to the theoretical parameters found therein, a variety of frameworks may be used after a preliminary assessment determining the compatibility of a new framework and the research problem. To advance empirical theory, it would be useful to employ the different systemic concepts in a coordinate fashion. A clarification of the linkages between concept and data and a realization of the differential utility of systemic frameworks, permits a synthesis of functional systems and specific-performance systems. The emerging paradigm of systemic analysis in comparative research rests upon the utility of adapting and thereby creating a higher level analysis in systemic theories rather than selecting one form of existing systemic theory. THE DEVELOPMENT OF SYSTEMIC CONCEPTS IN COMPARATIVE POLITICAL ANALYSIS: AN EMERGING PARADIGM By Philip Neal Marcus A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Political Science 1969 The ass exceeds enw.“ It wouId har tAeI'r respec to another d with brevity contributed t0 ”Day the "I Spec omittee, P Wiveration, I am es Eenemus 5U: Seem 0n the <3 / 7c/5’ // «.2 7-- 7e ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The assitance rendered to me while writing the dissertation exceeds enumeration for it is as great as this space is limited. It would hardly be sufficient to mention their names and pass over their respective contributions in silence. I leave the accounting to another day and remain silent rather than treat them unjustly with brevity. My teachers, friends, and critics have each contributed in a unique way to this endeavor and I shall strive to repay them for their contribution. My special acknowledgments I extend to the members of my committee, Professors Baljit Singh and Wesley R. Fishel. Their cooperation, counsel, and comment were invaluable. I am especially indebted to the Earhart Foundation whose generous support for the past two years made available the time spent on the dissertation. ii i9 . .4 I ,L; . ‘1‘: H' “fl I Chapter TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. THE DEVELOPMENT OF SYSTEMIC PARADIGMS .................... l Introduction ........................................... l Science and Comparison ............... ... ....... ........ lO Systemic Comparative Politics ......... .. ...... .... ..... 19 An Emerging Paradigm ................................... 26 Summary ..... . ......................... . ........... ..... 28 II. COMPARATIVE SYSTEMS THEORY .... ........................ ... 31 Systemic Foundations .......................... ......... 31 General Systems ........................................ 36 Sociological Politics .................................. 45 A Systems Continuum .................................... 48 III. A FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM ........................... . .......... 55 Conceptual Scope ....... ................................ 55 Microunit Analysis ... ............... . ..... . ....... ..... 58 The Conceptual Perspective ............................. 69 Macrounit Analysis ..................................... 78 Smmmy.. ..................... . ..... . ....... ..H ....... 86 IV. AN ANALOGUE SYSTEM ....................................... 9l Metaphor and Methodology ............................... 9l Conceptual Foundations ................................. 95 The Function of Analogy .................... ............ 98 Summary ............. ....... .................. .......... l06 V. A SPECIFIC-PERFORMANCE SYSTEM ............................ l09 Conceptual Scope ............ ................ ........... l09 Functional Variables ..... .............................. ll4 Paradigm Utility .... ..... .. ........ . ................... lZS iii ..... .............. ........ ..... ....... ........ ......... ..... ooooo Chapter Page VI. A DEVELOPING SYSTEM ...................................... l42 Conceptual Revision... .................................. I42 Conceptual Foundation .................... . ............ . I44 Paradigm and Theory .................................... l57 Summary .... ......................... . ...... . ........... I63 VII. PROBLEM-SOLVING SYSTEMS .................................. l67 Heurestic Concepts ................................... .. l67 Conceptual Boundaries .................................. l7O Summary ................................................ I79 VIII. A SYSTEMIC OVERVIEW ....... . ................. . .......... .. l83 The Utility of Systems Theory .......................... l83 An Emergent Paradigm .......................... . ........ 191 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................ l98 iv CHAPTER I THE DEVELOPMENT OF SYSTEMIC PARADIGMS Introduction There is a recent tendency among political scientists to write "epitaphs" for movements in order to celebrate the advance of the discipline of political science. The epitaph is both timely and premature. The celebration is sobering because a paradox is found in the participlants' statements about the criteria to be applied in order to measure the state of the discipline, as well as the results of that measurement. The timliness of the celebration is demonstrated by the absence of a division that formerly existed, a division said to be a con- frontation between "behaviorists“ and "traditionalists."1 The "behaviorists or behavioralists" constituted a protest movement voicing its dissatisfaction with the supposed achievements of con- ventional political science and asserting its belief that additional methods and approaches to provide political science with systematic, empirical foundations were necessary. The confrontation had passed before an epitaph was written to commemorate its occurance. Men of the "behavioral mood" had disappeared as well as the established ”traditionalist" but for an opposite reason. The old division was 1Robert A. Dahl, "The Behavioral Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a Monument to a Successful Protest," American Political Science Review, 55 (l96l): 763-72. miaced 5] r scientific a: $0 the e unity within tution. MI :Iusion of a but with th of the advert examination a i'actitI'ONErE ageerent brI consequence dorinating 0.1 Ciscipiine. Even wi‘ for oil the s ”0‘. a1] Slgr.‘ mm to hea; SCIEntiStS? Of the 1956 1 Iii-e SCIIOIay-S Dm‘ceSSl‘onai SCIPM "‘-E‘~Sta. . ll 2 replaced by new unity founded on the general acceptance of the scientific approach to political and social studies. So the epitaph for a successful movement acknowledged a new unity within the political science discipline based on a new consti- tution. The celebrations, however, are not concerned with the con- clusion of a struggle between the old and the new political science but with the advance of modern political science.2 The celebrations of the advance of the discipline are sobered by moments of self- examination and review. It is not the agreement now common to the practitioners of political science that is worth celebrating, for agreement brings peace but not necessarily progress. It is the consequence of the commitment to empirical science that is the dominating question for those concerned with the advance of the discipline. Even with scientific methodology victorious as common strategy for all the social sciences, and a unity of rules of inquiry accepted, not all significant issues are settled.3 What are the criteria by which to measure the fruits of the labors of scientific political scientists? When this question was posed in the plenary sessions of the l966 Convention of the American Political Science Association, the scholars who spoke to the issue--scholars who have devoted their professional lives to furthering the cause of a scientific political science--stated more interesting problems than they could scientifi- cally answer. They were not unanimous as to whether there was at 2Marion D. Irish, ed., Political Science: Advance of the Disci- pline (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1968). 3Ithiel deSola Pool, ed., Contemporary Political Science: Toward Empirical Theory (New York, 1967). present a SC heath Nor by tradition because they they agreed research and theory was i A debat about the re is a poiitio IS there but as one of itX theories are Presented in dECiSIver C- t‘lsts succee ex‘ISII'ng bet and mmOdoI i SUbStanIla be:aose SOC]. 3 present a scientific political theory or even a scientific social theory. Nor were they unanimous as to whether the questions raised by traditional political theory Iere relevant. They were not unanimous because they understood the question of theory in different ways; they agreed primarily on the relevance of a theory to empirical research and agreed implicitly the creation of a modern political theory was imminent. A debate about theory occurs as a consequence of an agreement about the relevance of theory. But whether theory that is relevant is a political theory or a social science theory provokes controversy. 'Is there but one modern empirical theory of society with politics as one of its topics? Or is there a collection of modern empirical theories among which is empirical political theory? The argument as presented in the volume of essays by political scientists is not decisivejy concluded. Nor have similar essays by other social scien- tists succeeded in concluding the argument.4 There is a parallel existing between theoretical arguments among political scientists and methodological arguments among social scientists. For example, a substantial argument is waged between those who believe that because social science is concerned with the behavior of individuals, all theoretical explanations of social phenomena must be defined in terms of individuals and not in collective terms.5 That is, the 4The writing addressed to this question is abundant but perhaps the most significant and representative volume is Llewellyn Gross, ed., Symposium on Sociological Theory (New York, l959). 5Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemig§_(New York. 1964), and F. A. Hayek, The CounteriRevolution in Sciénce (Chicago. l96l). figment ICC“ hereis a s: insociai SC' oght to refs The par: that argues * science wher I behvior. A sociai scier.| II Poiiticai: oohticai be- he def t Iitemtune t a distincti \l 'I‘h the bet I . “Pen bemgg of the actmpl dICEOf‘y anshll It I SeQQr-t One 5 4 argument feund in the discipline of political science as to whether there is a specifically political theory is found in analogous form in social science in the argument as to whether theoretical categories ought to refer to individuals or to collectivities. The parallel to the reductionist approach in social science that argues for methodological individualism is found in political science when it argues for psychological explanations of political behavior. And too, the parallel in the collectivist approach in social science that argues for methodological collectivism is found in political science when it argues for systemic explanations of political behavior. The definitive answers are not yet found in modern social science literature to such questions as: Is there a sociological theory or a distinctive political theory; Is social science concerned primarily with the behavior of individuals or the actions of collections of human beings; and, 15 political science to explain political behavior by reference to the structural context of the action or the psychology of the actors? Answers are found, that is, but they are contra- dictory answers.6 The evidence and the arguments marshalled to support one answer or the other do not compel belief. Political scientists are compelled to try and try again to determine the answers. 6"The explanation of social change will be discovered by socio- logy, economics, and psychology" (E. E. Hagen, 0n the Theory of Social Change [Homewood, ill.. l962], p. 2l). 1'Because of the HTTTErent types of problems and situations with which different disciplines deal what is 'explanation' for one discipline is merely 'description' fOr another. . . .There is a sort of hierarchy here: from mathamatics, to physics, to chemistry, to physiology. to ‘ sociology, to political science, and finally to phil050phy which in a sense subsumes them all” (Hadley Cantril, The Pattern of Human Concerns [New Brunswick, N.J., l964], p. 4). ‘1.— ‘m-‘" A There is poIitI'cai sci in the study scientists Ce reIationship theory is nec “systers ana‘. which poIiti: the enoirica‘. asource for However, the state of even the L empih sti‘I‘ Chara as I There a r 5 There is sound empirical justification to assume that modern political scientists are not only behavioral scientists specializing in the study of politics. They are not "mere" empiricists but scientists determined to explain facts of political life and their relationship to social life generally; hence, some conception of theory is necessary to order and explain facts. Functionalism, or "systems analysis," is a preferred formulation of modern theory to which political scientists refer in significant numbers. Based on the empirical fact of self-description, it is functionalism that is a source for modern political theory. However, as a commentator on a volume dedicated to evaluating the state of empirical theory states: even if the concept of system should emerge as the ultimate framework for inter-relating our empirical findings and theory building, it will still be necessary to link the various central characteristics of the political system which, as I read it, a systems orientation does not do.7 There are analytic and empirical obstacles to overcome before celebrating the creation of a full-blown empirical theory. Macro- analytic problems are inherent in systemic theory as a consequence of the concern for the gross functions and overall performance level of the political system. Microanalytic problems are inherent in systemic theory as a consequence of the empirical focus on individual actors and small groups. The important point in Synder's critique is the significance of locating the nexus between the macrostructure in theory and behavioral components in data and constructing a logic to combine a systemic theory of the macropolitical system and empi- rical data on the behavior of its micro-political units. 7Richard C. Synder in "Introduction," to Contemporary Political Science, ed., Pool, pp. ix-x. Another 5 the:ry posed ; oisysteric a: aniricai dat; derands in or its reIiabiII" systenizatior | I I I I | | Note the to theory. For: concern itsei‘ in order to a; A theme a .‘evoiution, a 9f the dlSCipi EXETanathHS . 1'73“”? and i I133 been atta agree “DON a 6 Another and related challenge for the advance of modern political theory posed by Robert A. Dahl is the importance and even inevitability of systemic appraisals of concrete political systems.8 The flow of empirical data needs to be channeled and harnessed by thoughtful demands in order to sharpen the relevance of data as well as insure its reliability. A theoretical and practical consequence of a systemization of evaluative criteria for research would be to eli- minate the controversy about the alleged implicit evaluations in systemic theory. For both reasons, Dahl would have systemic theory explicitly concern itself with evaluating the performance of political systems in order to advance modern political theory. A theme emerging in political science since the scientific revolution, a theme illustrated in writings celebrating the advance of the discipline, is a self-conscious concern for criteria to evaluate explanations. The purpose of modern political science is systemic inquiry and it is important to assess the degree to which the goal has been attained. In order to do this, however, it is necessary to agree upon a standard by which current explanations may be evaluated. The problem is complex. For example, it is necessary to iden- tify a conceptual framework (and they are not always explicitly stated), distill from it postulated statements and hypotheses, and then critically examine the body of theory as well as its application.9 The result of such a critical examination of political theory is an 8Robert A. Dahl, "The Evaluation of Political Systems," in Contemporary Political Science, ed., Pool. DP. l66-l8]. 9Robert A. Dahl's reference is to Dean Nuebauer, "0n the Theory of Polyarchy: An Empirical Study of Democracy in Ten Countries" (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, n.d.), pp. l70-7l. See also fn. 50. f? ten-a? evaluation 0‘ political phi explicit or r any such exa‘; science ougf': Deters? To enha' discipline n: if develoone' Wt empirica‘. ' . 1n comarati ‘. SEv’eral subs: .. I we T— 7 evaluation of the utility of existing systemic explanations of political phenomena. Whether the examination makes the question explicit or not, the implicit question that is the consequence of any such examination is: What is the direction that political science ought to take in order to improve its level of explanatory powers? To enhance the general level of scientific competence in the discipline requires a theoretical advance. And at the present stage of development the obstacles to theoretical advances appear to be not empirical but analytical.10 The recent development of theory in comparative political study has occured under the influence of several substantive theories as well as several understandings of "theory." The development has been in the direction of an explicit concern for self-consciousness which, while at times disillusioning and controversial, is generally a source of potential strength. Further advancement in the immediate future will be in the direction of clarifying and elaborating conceptual frameworks rather than construction of substantive theories of political phenomena.11 The revolution in data collection has eliminated the crises brought about by the absence of empirical data that at times has led political science astray. Sufficient and varied data now exists to expose flaws in substantive theories that once enjoyed prominance. The existence or non-existence, or even the level, or empirical data no longer handicaps the creation of adequate conceptual frameworks. TOEu Paradigm nEugene J. Meehan, Contemporary Political Thought: A Critical Study (Homewood, Ill., 1937). gene J. Meehan, Explanation in Social Science: A System Homewood, Ill.,1968). rrmfl‘ Recent e several conce are now no lo are now atser naoner in whi of lO-lS year renain as Sig longer used 1 ~— InDavio' Illham T. E‘, N‘J'l 1965), Innovation ix MING, :05. Folttical Sc‘l #CSEMU, "Pc' D . . om 13% t: W the behgl m new direC‘. Giltlca] 89' ”Meshes t; 8 Recent evaluations of the state of political theory reveals several conceptual frameowrks initially adopted by political scientists are now no longer used alone.12 An explanation of why earlier theories are now absent in evaluations of modern political theory reveals the manner in which political science has advanced.13 The central concepts of 10-15 years ago, "power theory, elite theory, and group theory," remain as significant concepts of political science but they are no longer used to attempt a comprehensive analysis of political life.14 1ZDavid Easton, The Political System (New York, l953); William T. Bluhm, Theories of the Political System (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1965); Sheldon S. Wolin, Politics and’Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Theory (Boston, l960); Gabriel A. Almond,—“Political'Theory and Political Science," in Contemporary Political Science, ed., Pool, pp. 1-21; Neil A. McDonald and James N. Rosenau, "Political Theory as Academic Field and Intellectual Activity," in Political Science: Advance of a Discipline, ed., Irish, pp. 21-54. 13“As the readings in this volume will illustrate, those working from the behavioral perspective have done much to stimulate our thinking in new directions" (5. Sidney Ulmer, ed., Introductory Readings in Political Behavior [Chicago, 196l], p. 4). Listed among the conceptual approaches to political behavior are "Groups," "Power," and "Elites." ‘4The most significant attempt to construct a theoretical frame- work on the concept of power is Harold D. Lasswell and Abraham Kaplan, Power and Society(New Haven, Conn., l950); other significant essays essential to understanding the use of the concept are: R. A. Dahl, "The Concept of Power," in Behavioral Science, 2 (l957): 20l-l5; and Herbert A. Simon, "Notes on the Observation and Measurement of Political Power,“ Journal of Politics, 15 (l953): 500-16. The study of elites remains a dominant concept although it no longer occupies the position it once held. Again, the writings of Harold Lasswell generally touch upon the concept and a useful biblio- graphy is fOund n Harold D. Lasswell, Daniel Lerner, and C. Easton Rothwell, The Comparative Study of Elites (Stanford, l952); Susan Keller, Egyond the Ruling Class: Strategic Elites in Modern Society (New York, l963); James Meisel, The Myth of theiRuling_Class*(Ann Arbor, l963). The search for more comprehensive conceptual frame- works is triggered by Robert A. Dahl, Who Governs: Democracy and Power in an American City (New Haven, Conn., lQBl); Nelson Polsby, Communit’ waer and Political Theor (New Haven, Conn., 1963): a recent critical But hopeful comment is Dan wart Rustow, "The Study of Elites: Who's Who, When, and How," World Politics, 18 (l966): 690-7l4. The work of C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite (New York, l956), continues to exercise influence as it weaves together power, elite, and group concepts. itecuoh 3‘ elite, and Bentley ass is stated. The co: o‘er ted ear to the cone “silent nail no longer 5' with evaluai instance. 1 question of evaluates it So the Dolitica] SC‘ hm dimensiOr assumtlons i the assul‘wi‘ti'o DamChia“Sui. ri 5~rEnc 'erlSc ir . , ”Write? 9 Although all political scientists make use of the concepts of power, elite, and group, it is rare to find someone who asserts, as Arthur F. Bentley asserted, "When the groups are adequately stated, everything is stated. When I say everything, I mean everything.”5 The combined influences of empiricism and analytic theory have demoted earlier, substantive theories of politics and forced attention to the conceptual frameworks relied upon to analyze data. The "silent major premises" that once guided the science of politics are no longer silent but actively debated.16 The debate is concerned with evaluating the objectivity of conceptual frameworks in the first instance. The debate is concerned at another level with the whole question of whether an objective and comprehensive science of politics evaluates its explanations. So the current theoretical debate about the advancement of political science through the use of the social systems concept has two dimensions. One, the question of whether there are evaluative assumptions in the prevailing concepts of system analysis and whether the assumptions, by those who find some, effect a bias towards parochialism. Two, the question of whether political science, 931 science, is concerned with evaluating political phenomena, or structuring its empirical data in a mode that provides material upon which to make normative judgments. 15The "group approach" was pioneered by A. F. Bentley, The Process of Government, 2nd ed., (Evanston, Ill., 1935), and given wider publicityiby David Truman, The Governmental Process (Ithaca, N.Y., 1952) and Bertram Gross, The Legislative Struggle (New York, 1953). A good critique of the concept is found in Roy C. Macridis, "Groups and Group Theory? Journal of Politics, 23 (1961): 335-364. 15A history of the sociology of the study of comparative politics organized around this concept is Sigmund Neumann, "Comparative Politics: A Half-century Appraisa1," The Journal of Politics, 2 (1957): 369-390. The dial nid-liZi's vv' roon the fie“. taneously re; iomal--i.e. C . research of 5 their view, : reality. It atieoretica‘ | Wired a d: The uncyl | profession 1.; "Chicago Sch: nodes and OJ lies 0f Refol 8mm“) St; Motive big helmCS Spi‘l I 10 Science and Comparison The dialogue about theory that continues today began in the mid-1920's when the new students of politics mounted a general attack upon the field of political science as it then existed. They simul- taneously rejected the subjective--hence, parochia1--e1ement and the forma1--i.e., partial--e1ement in favor of analytical, empirical research of social life generally. The traditional position was, in their View, precarious and no longer an adequate explanation of reality. It was neither true enough nor general enough to provide a theoretical orientation in changed circumstances; the remedy required a dose of new technique and quantitative research.‘7 The uncritical optimism and the democratic assumptions of the profession led the new scientists, e.g., Charles Merriam and the "Chicago School," to reject dogma and orthodoxy in favor of new modes and orders to analysis. The political ideals of the American Ages of Refbrm and Progressivism were increasingly a target for the empirical students of politics as they sought to eliminate the implicit normative biases. The shift of emphasis in the study of domestic politics spilled over into the field of comparative government.‘8 The persuasiveness of their appeal led to the creation during World War II of a professional panel charged with exploring the state of the discipline of comparative government. Karl Lowenstein, 17A1bert Somit and Joseph Tanenhaus, The Development of Political Science (Boston, 1967), ch. 12 on the motivations behind the behavioral revolution. 18Bernard Crick, The American Science of Politics: Its Origins and Conditions (Berkeley,‘l959), especially éhs. 5 and 8. the comittee One 1‘ branc cornea tedio about for b The imedi ate like academic there could t hostilities e art for art's rejuvenation Chronism and "wonizatior alone Adequai Cmarative g 50ml mvln: manic dis: The metr lCEntjcal’ tr in the ll'terg has”), 1.507? SuestiOn of or ”Wt-tee to ll” Call for 11 the committee chairman, set the tone for the coming debate: One fact stands out clearly, i.e., that the branch of political science commonly styled comparative government has emerged from a tedious and stagnating routine and. . .is $33"§ytie‘s‘"$§§i°aidzii"3233i222."i‘.“‘.’i5d The immediate pressures of the war had already claimed the "Cinderella- 1ike academic discipline" for a casualty, the report continued, and there could be no return to this "intellectual isolationism" when hostilities ended. Comparative government could no longer be merely art for art's sake. The barriers to overcome to acomplish the rejuvenation were: acceptance of descriptive analysis as an ana- chronism and widening the scope and the techniques of the study; and recognization of the inability of any single technique or method alone adequately to explain the essence of a political system. The comparative study of politics was to become a "total" science by boldly moving the frontiers of the field into the territory of other academic disciplines.20 The methodology of the new comparative politics should be identical, they said, to a "blueprint of human knowledge. . .catholic in the literal sense,“ coordinating and integrating much that was formerly isolated within departmental boundaries. The prickly question of organizing this polyglot discipline was left by the committee to its successors; its major advice was that “the task. . . will call for concerted action on the part of the profession, in teamwork and planning with individual effort subordinated to the collective requirements."2] 19“Report of the Research Panel on Com arative Politics,” American Political Science Review, 38 (1944 : 540-48. 201 id. lebid. Even W criticised at to the field of cut and d1 urgency of Pi hy-covntl')’ 5‘ in order for 'conearati ve the study sh: approach. "1 institutions mlitical pr.“ life. In cl tation to all renters in tt In his issociation ( W”: State ind Practice: USE of the CC ”‘7‘ undersea my”. C072: “ 0f the s: 12 Even the name of the study, "comparative government," was criticised as indicative of the state of suspended animation common to the field. It was too closely associated with a "sort of herbarium of cut and dried specimens of foreign institutions" to denote the urgency of revolutionizing the discipline. The customary country- by-country survey must give way to an effective functional comparison in order for the study to live up to its name. A change of name to "comparative politics" would facilitate the change of orientation: the study should delineate an area of concern and a common systematic approach. "To compare" was understood to mean to examine political institutions and functions by reference to variables found in diverse political phenomena yet having a common denominator of political life. In closing, the committee extended an urgent and cordial invi- tation to all "genuinely interested in the field" to enroll as members in the new group, an invitation quickly accepted by many.22 In his presidential address to the American Political Science Association (1953), H. Pendleton Herring spoke of the present and the future state of the discipline as measured by research strategy and and practical usefulness. Both criteria, he said, required a broader use of the comparative method to reveal some units of comparison and some understanding of the political processes that the units create. However, comparative research as "unbridled empiricism" reminded him of the story of the Tower of Babel--diligent and aspiring, but doomed to failure.23 Systematic theory was needed to replace the 22The committee reiterates a similar proposal put forth by a preceding study group chaired by Kenneth Colegrove, "Comparative Politics: A Conference Report," American Political Science Review. 21 (1927): 389-393. 23H. Pendleton Herring, ”On The Study of Government," American Political Science Review, 47 (1953): 961-974. confusion of ”rich that tical We“ might be the At the 5 Council. “R95 of the "colle 194:: report-2 the collectio not know why tie-o."26 T0 levels of ex: net facts be do the data p :iently homo; cective of he: there is ano: meant to s: the wholeut: 13 confusion of tongues if the political analyst is to succeed. Without a prior, that is, theoretical, understanding of politica and poli- tical order, "political castration and ivory-tower isolation. . . ." might be the fruit of the labor.24 At the same time, the 1953 report of the Social Science Research Council, "Research in Comparative Politics," addressed the question of the "collective requirements" of the field left undefined by the 1944 report.25 The question of methodology was given priority over the collection of data since: "Today we have many facts but we do not know why we have them and we are unable to decide what to do with them."26 To begin a comparative analysis requires sorting out the levels of explanation by which comparison may occur in order to know what facts belong to which category of explanation. For example, do the data pertain to a single problem limited to certain "suffi- ciently homogeneous systems," parts of the political process "irres- pective of homogeneity," or political systems as such?27 Obviously, there is another implicit principle behind this methodological precept to sort facts by levels, i.e., a conceptual understanding of the whole--the idea of the political system. Talk of the level of analysis is premature without categories of analysis drawn from an already existing conception of politics. 24Ibid. 25Ray C. Macridis and Richard Cox, “Research in Comparative Politics," American Political Science Review, 47 (1953): 64l-61. ZGIbid. 27Ibid. See also Gunnar Heckscher, “General Methodological Problems, in Comparative Politics: A Reader, eds. ., David E. Apter and Harry Eckstein (New’York, 1963), pp. 35-42. P '. . talk] i... , The corn discoverable system and ft. Elaborating c politics as f legitimacy a: by the societ tie end-state society. The gene as a foundat' science. The the American areorientat- Pesearch Cour The mmittfi TECngize ant Mitlcal Sc- 14 The committee members agreed to view politics as a universally discoverable social function existing as part of the total social system and functioning to make decisions "with the force of legitimacy." Elaborating on this framework, they described the general modes of politics as follows: the political process is the struggle for legitimacy among groups; the result of this struggle is determined by the society's structure of influence (formal and informal); and the end-state, legitimacy, reflects the political values of the society. The general understanding of political behavior they desired as a foundation for comparative political study was not new to social science. They had in mind the significant change in conception in the American science of politics pioneered in the inter-war period, a reorientation that some of the participants of the Social Science Research Council committee had already cooperated in establishing.28 The committee appealed to the students of comparative government to recognize and correct the divergence between their field and general political science. They based their appeal on the greater utility of 28It is difficult to exaggerate the influence exercised by Charles R. Merriam and his relative handful of unusual students on the political science profession. There is a striking correspondence between the goals presented in Merriam's New Aspects of Politics (Chicago, 1925) and the goals presented by the committees cited above. Merriam was the originator of the "Committee on Political Research" which prepared for the ground for innovations called for in the 1950s by the several American Political Science Association research committees. Merriam was also mainly responsible for the creation of the Social Science Research Council, and as its first Chairman, was instrumental in fbregoing a profitable relationship between philanthropic foundations and the social sciences. The work begun in the Association and the S.S.R.C. continues today under the auspices of the Committee on Comparative Politics, culminating the series of works "Studies in Political Development." See Bernard Crick, The Americag_Science of Politics, pp. 133-155; and Somit and Tanenhaus, "Political Science's Hall ofFame," in American Political Science: A Profile of a Discipline (New York, 1964). u- the func‘tlor the lrlCreaSE aroufid Cm 6.9-! the fL the melt“ atomic“ the formal all?“ from how it what is done about its ru Typical is David Tru: priately borl Tnoras Kuhn's notion of a ' by fomulator defines a sci Sistenaticall the problems rejection of occurs on the \ 29 l lisci David Di The,” 30.- “ :hona; .u. I bago l"" .4, 3 JV 15 the functional approach to explain political behavior and explained the increased benefits promised by integrating the study of politics around common assumptions. A broad adeption of a common assumption, e.g., the functional approach to political behavior, would be useful, the committee members argued. It would enable political scientists to approach the reality of political life rather than deal with its formal appearances. The reality of how politics occurs is far removed from how it ought to occur. And a political science that abandons what is done in favor of what ought to be done will ultimately bring about its ruin rather than its preservation. Typical of this reassessment of the study of comparative politics is David Truman's recent analysis of political science.29 He appro- priately borrows an analysis originally applied to the natural sciences, Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.30 Kuhn's notion of a “paradigm" is an understanding of science widely accepted by formulators of the new study of comparative politics. The term defines a science as characterized by a common set of beliefs, systematically structured to farm a model of inquiry, which defines the problems and methods of legitimate research. The prevailing rejection of the conventional theories of comparative government occurs on the authority of this view of theory. In the absence of a paradigm, students lack a conmon guide to relevant research and a standard to evaluate their empirical findings. If they lack this 29David B. Truman, "Disillusion and Regeneration: The Quest fbr a Discipline,“ American Political Science Review, 59 (1965): 865-873. 30Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago. 1962). .2.» ...-L- , onlytical Uvr they recogniz with the rese tive study 0‘ below) may be doninant parci Truman 5 older study i in the begin: assmptions i Bil/CE. belie' tation pmy-i; acvocate as, ”0t t0 theorf °f this posi: in the implic guise of "so" tical fundeng mSEd with t Ig;v r EneSS ll 1. if i na’ddlg "Hiya l6 analytical understanding, which the paradigm provides, then how will they recognize and correct false conclusions? The great dissatisfaction with the results of most of the past research presented as the compara- tive study of foreign governments (summed up in Eckstein‘s list, below) may be traced to the absence or disagreement about the pre- dominant paradigm(s). Truman supports the professional committees' criticisms of the older study in discussing the paradigm status of the field today. In the beginning, the study of comparative politics was based on the assumptions implicit in the works of such men as Wilson and James Bryce, beliefs ascendant until the mid-19305. Generally, the orien- tation provided by the founders produced the attitude summed by one advocate as, "The most distinctive American theory of government is not to theorize."3l However, the modern critics see the major flaw of this position not in the explicit rejection of theory as such, but in the implicit introduction of a particular normative theory in the guise of "scientific neutrality." In short, the agreement on poli- tical fundamentals shared by these early political scientists dis- pensed with the need to theorize. The predominance of a sense of "giveness" in the political order was so great that discussion of a paradigm was superfluous.32 3‘Cited in Crick, The American Science of Politics, p. 16, while discussing the influence of Bryce of whom it was said,i“to Bryce, all facts were free and equal." 32The concept of ”giveness" continues to enjoy some prominance in American historical writing. See Daniel Boorstin, The Genius of American Politics (Chicago, 1953) for a self-contradictory attempt to deny the relevance of theory. iLflM _‘ The fine hence be)?“ nechanics of increased thi and reduced : cribing fore‘ basic conpon»; Stugly dereCr origins in t' occupied itse- institutions tiers of pol‘l incline belil The impll antlers it 5| El.l‘eriences el ““5935 of ml and could not SUEremaCy 0f 1: 3f liter-a] So: (‘5 (D U. (D .1 < (D _ (‘1 ___--——— rid Ecks:i 17 The American system of politics was accepted as axiomatic and hence beyond question; attention was focused on the particulars, the mechanics of the existing polity. Fussing with details, of course, increased the parochial dimension of the American science of politics and reduced comparative government to a sub-field limited to des- cribing fbreign democratic institutions. Comparison was hardly a basic component of a political science essentially normative and smugly democratic. Indeed, the "institutionalist" school has its origins in this era. The comparative element that did survive occupied itself with the formal, legal description of European institutions to evaluate the degree of existing democracy. The theme of political change, for example, was nothing more than an implicit belief in the evolution of democracy. The implicit paradigm was shaken when the pradedures and problems it suggested became incompatible with non-congruent experiences encountered especially in comparative government. The success of the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, and the Fascists was not, and could not be, explained by the existing faith in the natural supremacy of democracy, the sovereignity of law, and the efficiency of liberal social engineering.33 The importation of European, mainly German, ideas of social science served to breech the domestic barriers of “democraticism” by including non-democratic systems of social organization as legitimate areas of research. The acceptance of "value free 33Harry Eckstein, "Constitutional Engineerin and the Problem of Viable Representative Government," in Comparat ve Politics, eds., Apter and Eckstein, pp. 97-104. categories" :- l‘itfiough the trying to pr: acase had bel dimensions 0‘ framework an: | oost-‘iorld Nah The grocl Pmlems at fl “at?" study cl Damchialism” 50". be made. Whigs, mdl {flights into Masses of c :arall lts H l; ' Afl‘d' :nu-ohd 18 categories" of analysis replaced the former democratic bias.34 Although the study of comparative government still concentrated on trying to provide a camera-like picture of formal political life, a case had been made for the inclusion of other forms and added dimensions of social organization. The significance of the broadened framework and experiments in method was to be made clear in the post-world War II world. The growing disunity in the discipline and its parts created problems at first. The breadth and resourcefulness of the regene— rated study of American politics was unable to overcome a "kind of parochialism" because comparisons between political systems could not be made. The traditional, unregenerated study of foreign politics, mainly Western European government, failed to provide insights into and comparisons of the political institutions and processes of other countries necessary to correct the problem. For all its historical, legal, and philosophical heritage, political science and comparative politics were unable to escape a certain alienation from reality because of an over-emphasis on either the infbrmal or formal aspects of politics.35 34It would be an interesting study in the sociology of know- ledge to explore the reasons for the time lag between the writings of Max Heber and their translation and popular availability. See fn. 49. 35The study of American domestic politics became increasingly concerned with the procedural details of political activity, especially the economic origins and conditions of political activity, with men such as Woodrow wilson and Charles Beard dominating intellectual circles. At the same time, formalism, or the study of parliamentary institutions, became almost the whole concern of comparative studies, especially those institutional arrangements associated with a fbrmally democratic political system. M“ B\ w , 7 i. ..'25-': a redefir: 25:22 :asic fact ;t:'22:‘.‘ve‘:y deba‘ Ki“ Syst i '5 :gtarative s ;:fS‘lS. The :2'2'3itior. from C’ '?2:.'232'1t emit. .Yzfisinorder ' g»? :fi-‘h‘q' . '1' '5 l'lgor ' AEStem 1 19 Systemic Comparative Politics The comparative study of politics is undergoing a reconstitution, or at least a redefinition, which will sharply alter its meaning. Perhaps the basic fact about the present state of the discipline is its crisis. The "silent major premises" are no longer accepted but are actively debated. The purpose of the debate is to discuss the transition from one style of analysis to another. The purpose of the present examination is to explicate the reasons underlying this debate in order to evaluate the usefulness of the competing claims. The leaders of the intellectual revolution who arbitrate this argument are aware of a need for a "ground clearing” operation to remove some remnants of the ancient regime before they establish a new claim.36 The first aspect of the arbitration is an examination of the discipline in the light of what it was--the study of compara- tive government. One appraisal of the current state of the disci- (Nine concludes that there are fOur major trends: (l) the quest for scientific rigor, (2) structural-functional analysis, (3) concern wdth non-Western political systems, and (4) concern with the broad setting of politics.37 According to Eckstein, the absence of these elements made the earlier comparative study of government deficient. However, these recent innovations are not as yet an orthodoxy, 36The concept of “clearing away the underbrush" in order to Prepare the ground for science is formally defined and used in Peter'Hinch, The Idea g: a Social Science (New York, l958). Also Leslie Wolf-Phillips, "Metapolitics: Reflections on a 'Methodological Revolution'," Political Studies, 12 (l964): 362-69. 37Harry Eckstein, "A Perspective on Comparative Politics: Past and 22esent," in Comparative Politics, eds., Apter and Eckstein, PP- ~30. 20 since they must coexist with remnants of two other prevailing doctrines--a "predominately formal, legal, morphological, essentially descriptive, and configurative style," and "middle-range theory based upon common sense concepts and methods, . . . (a) crude empiricism, unguided by any rigorous procedures or explicit frame of reference.“38 Eckstein's understanding of this anomaly seems to be that the intellectual richness of the ciscipline underlies its scientific barreness. The general character of the argument dividing the proponents of the various approaches is a disagreement over what basic under- standing should guide the study. To describe or not to describe is not the issue producing the divisions. No one pleads for more abstraction at the expense of data collection. But, description alone is fruitless in that it produces nothing of further promise. More relevant is the argument that the perception preceding des- cription is distortive. There is no immaculate perception. Consequently, logic requires a careful examination of and agreement on the pre-scientific, unsystematic foundations of the discipline. But the prevailing multitude of pre-judgments produces a variety of explanations based on disparate research. Eckstein and other political scientists desire a systematization that will correct this deficiency by imposing a common approach, a common agreement on the categories of analyses, and a common vocabulary with which to discuss the conclusions. These are the necessary, but not sufficient, conditions to obtain scientific rigor. 381515.. p. 29. 21 Eckstein and his colleagues derive a two-fold criticism of traditional comparative government from the above point. The con- fusion created by competing claims is increased because the lack of systematization within the field obscures the source of the confusion. The competing positions--the institutionalists and the "crude empiricists“--assume too much or deny too much; the institutionalists confuse a particular normative assumption with scientific theory, and the simple empiricists deny the need for any theoretical assumptions. The argument between these two approaches lacks a common ground; one approach selects some facts and excludes others, while the other refuses to discriminate among facts at all. Eckstein is concerned with the disjunction and attempts to clarify two considerations as a beginning for unification. One consideration is for metatheoretical questions--the "invisible value judgments"--which, as such, are beyond the domain of science, even the philosophy of science. Although concern with metatheoretical questions is common to all sciences, their explicit discussion in comparative government reveals the youthfulness of the discipline.39 An example of Eckstein's first consideration is found in the study of economics, one of the oldest social sciences, which succeeded initially by accepting the concept of “rationality" as the motive for the actions of the "economic man,“ all other things 39The concept of "metatheory" is used as a technical term to refer to the study of the language used by theorists, the methods employed, and the epistomological implications of particular theories. In short, it refers to the comparative evaluations of theories. See Richard Rudner, Philosophy of Social Science (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1966). being 82‘. analytic: with the yet, the pline. 1 actors. 'econornic economist clarified this part Tne conparati theory in the under: mlitical character; and the "p SElf-prESe “Eran“ are, StructionS 'actor" ' in 'Cont mar 22 being equal.40 Of course, no modern economist confuses this analytical construct with the behavior of actual men or even agrees with the implied moral judgment that most men are "irrational"; yet, the construct was sufficient for the foundation of the discié pline. It provided a basis to reconstruct reality around abstract actors. Certainly there was never a market place peopled by "economic men"; but an "ideal" situation was created against which economists could compare an actual market place. The problem was clarified: What are the variables influencing men to depart from this particular pattern of behavior? The appearance of structural-functional analysis in modern comparative politics, an instance of the acceptance of systems theory in social science generally, marks a significant change in the understanding of the metatheoretical question. Economic and political theory historically identified many actors of different character; the "economic man" possessed of rational self-interest, and the "political man" motivated by a desire for comfortable self-preservation are among the recent identifications. These "men" are, as were all theoretical constructs, abstracted recon- structions of experience. Despite the continued use of the term “actor" in systems theory, the basic elements of social life are "containers“ rather than entities with specific properties.41 40The original formulation of the concept occurs in Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (New York, 1937), but his use is not the current definition of “rationality" preferred by economists. There is an obvious difference in the writings of Marx as well as J.M. Keynes. 41Rob§rt A. Dahl. Modern Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 96 . The 9‘. scientific form) sys‘. the definii asystem, 1' basic mtii such as a misleading an arhitra as a form-a is said to when addre "Who wants The 5 question w The Profile a Darticul assmptlor. “at then 23 The guiding assumption analogous to that which created the scientific study of economics and whose acceptance is necessary to fbrmal systems theory in modern political theory has to do with the definition of "actor.“ The individual as a unit constituting a system, is analytically unsatisfactory when certain qualities or basic motives are ascribed to it. The assignment of a characteristic such as a will to power, or even talk of "the whole man," is a misleading selection that narrows reality. Instead of employing an arbitrary selection of qualities, the concept of “role” serves as a formal device to resolve this perennial problem. The actor is said to be a collection of roles. The question, "Who are you?", when addressed to an actor, is answered by another question, "Who wants to know?" The second consideration introduced by Eckstein is a "theoretical" question which must be answered in order to establish a science. The problem at this level, according to Church-In, is to agree upon a particular system of inquiry.42 For example, assuming an initial assumption such as positing a kind of "rationality" in the actor, what then is learned by use of the construct to explain the workings of a system? what are the empirical variables in the market place which modify "rational" behavior? Structural-functional analysis as a system of inquiry disposes of the theoretical concern in the very way it understands "system." 42C. N. Churchman, Prediction and Optimal Decision (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1961); "Design and Inquiry:“‘1nternal Working Paper No. 28 (Berkeley, 1965); “Kantian Inquiring Systems,“ Internal Workin Pa er No. 6 (Berkeley, n.d.). Also Ole Holsti, "An Adapta- tion 0% the 'GEneral Inquirer' for the Systemic Analysis of Political Documents," Behavioral Science, 9 (1964): 382-88. The basic system. T dissolved given none transactic from its c unreal“; i aprice pa view in a a residue . system.M | Anot: , I inherent i obvious cgl StUdy of rl in the WCr' study "hi-r The aCQUisl Subjected with“ mdl'ginou: 24 The basic unit of analysis is the interaction of actors within a system. The misleading substance of earlier “political men“ is dissolved in the acid of interaction--men are what they do at any given moment or in the process of moments.43 The utility of the transactional measure, as well as its analytic character, is derived from its conceptual formality. It is not "true or false, real or unreal"; it is useful for inquiry into systems. But ambiguity is a price paid fer resolving the question of the theoretical point of view in a fbrmal manner. For example, the "boundary problem" is a residue of exploring operating systems by use of a conceptual system.44 Another example of the problems which concern Eckstein, inherent in the older mode of studying comparative government, is obvious considering the energy recently expended in developing the study of non-Western political processes. The "winds of change" in the world after 1945 created greater opportunity for comparative study while they increased the political necessity to do so. The acquisition of independence by so many former colonies and subjected peoples produced new, contrasting, and fluctuating political forms as Western political ideas and institutions confronted indiginous social practices. New fields of social study gained urgency because the "telescoping of history" gave the outcome a 43John Nahlike et al., The Legislative System: Explorations in Legislative Behavior’TNew York,l962) and Gardner Lindzey, ed., Handbook of Social Psychology(Cambridge, Mass., 1954). 44"Systems analysis is Easton's weapon against two ghosts he helped install in the house of political science--we know them as the boundary and the units problems" (Paul Kress, "Self, System, and Significance," Ethics, 7 [1966], p. 2). a9local in palm” and! politics-"4 It was Wk of lllS polltltal l and denocra VET? CORSlC assoc-this of politica in which tt The at studies," a unsound has examining c teristic 0" afrarevori empirical s the facts a All forms 3| wires-mg evolution i Ecksta Dolitics-u; \l 45- ' 25 a global importance. "Thus, both a scientific and a moral-political purpose may be served by the development of a systematic comparative politics."45 It was theoretically impossible to apply the established frame- work of institutional comparative government in studying forms of political life other than monarchies, aristocracies, republics, and democracies, or their combinations. All other political forms were considered "barbaric" as judged by the underlying normative assumptions. An approach concentrating on the formal, legal element of political life could not be used to analyze new political forms in which the non-legal processes were primary.46 The attempt to understand diverse political forms as "area studies," although a beginning, similarly miscarried because of unsound basic assumptions. Aside from the normative problem of examining different societies, the rapid and intense change charac- teristic of politics east of Suez could not be accommodated within a framework assuming a static quality in political life. The early empirical studies of political behavior outside Europe focused on the facts and discovered many dimensions of political life accurately. All forms of non-Western politics--tribes, communities, villages, empires-~were discussed as exotic, inferior forms on the scale of evolution when they were considered. Eckstein's last point-—concern for the broad setting of politics--is a general category that includes both policy questions 45Neumann, "A Half-century Appraisal," p. 369. 45Roy C. Macridis, “A Survey of the Field of Comparative Government," in Comparative Politics, eds., Apter and Eckstein, pp. 43-51. and 5121303 coauarati'v new areas- of new nat zation, is The simult new poli ti field: thr- a wide var“ The pi Dmpose to by Strengt among c0339 advance :22. Politics, Empean p) t0 take in It would Systems tC I EttltudeS I 26 and methodology. Significant proposals for the reorientation of comparative politics have to do with extending political science to new areas--geographical, political, and methodological. The study of new nations, including the processes of development and moderni- zation, is the source of many of the innovations in the field. The simultaneous appearance of new types of political systems and new political problems highlights the general problems in the field: the search for analytical methods that will give meaning to a wide variety of new data. An Emerging Paradigm The present leaders of the discipline, aware of these problems, propose to accomplish their goal not only by innovation, but also by strengthening tendencies to accept a broad research strategy among comparative analysts. For example, why not use and thereby advance the “process studies," so effective in understanding American politics, to explain what actually happens in European and non- European politics? Why not restructure the analysis of institutions to take into account other dimensions of the political process? It would be a means to trace political decisions back to the social system, to identify the relevant social groups, and to uncover the attitudes of the population. A common research strategy and a verified methodology would improve the well-being of the entire discipline, remove the parochialism and alienation, and help to unify the social sciences.47 47An early suggestion to this effect is found in Gabriel Almond et al. ,"A Suggested Research Strategy in Western European Government and Politics," in Comparative Politics, eds., Apter and Eckstein, pp. 52- 56. The a are many a deficienci social sys apolitical Its data a facts asse political wholly wit unlikely t concern wi The p tiltlllg COPE; classes of 0‘5 politica lt is COmp- t0 exisfin‘ m'StOTlcal defl’lEd as Specia] Ca: ”265 DPOCE 1.nmtul-lOr 27 The advantages of this formulation for reorganizing the field are many and provide an avenue of research free of the traditional deficiencies. The touchstone of guided empirical examination of social systems frees comparative politics from the abstract-~and apolitical-~qua1ity it had as the study of foreign institutions. Its data are not barren of knowledge as was the arid collection of facts assembled by the first generation empiricists. Comparative political study would become impotent were it to concern itself wholly with the partial interests of its predecessors. It is unlikely to happen so long as its present focus-~research and concern with actual political problems--is strengthened. The present proposal drawn from Eckstein's essay for reconsti- tuting comparative politics is comparative in that categories and classes of political events, rather than unique, concrete instances of political institutions, form the basis of the analysis. Also, it is comparative in that the relationship of antecedent factors to existing factors can be explored analytically, rather than by historical and legal accounts. It is general in that politics is defined as universal, rather than parochial and restricted to the special case of Western democracy. It is dynamic in that it empha- sizes process and informal political behavior, rather than formal, institutional activity. Comparative politics defined in this manner is an area of concern as well as a methodology. Its foundation is the concept of systems analysis and it attempts to discuss political behavior in all its manifestations--but, in terms of the analytical categories contained within the concept of “system." The concept is in no respect a I. to generate theories. imperative empirical s theory? h" using these variables t It is Questi on , = follows frc. SE‘aantlcs, EXhanded i: the emcee. bate" use. Ethodoiog. The b); is to “We 0 lts method; the 3359“. a Silently tad ll uh, and J the . .I QJESts /_ - .- 28 respect a theory of comparative politics. It is a possible means to generate a theory, or at least to separate the claims of competing theories. Since the proof of the pudding is in the eating, it is imperative to sample the product of the endeavor: What kinds of empirical studies can be conducted with the assistance of systems theory? What kinds of hypotheses can be explored and verified by using these analytical categories? And, what are the systemic variables that can be identified by students of comparative politics? Summary It is no longer necessary to give serious attention to the question, “Is political science a science?" The argument that fbllows from the question is specious, a fruitless exercise in semantics, and its demise should be celebrated. The energy formerly expended in debates as to the merit and propriety of systemitizing the procedures by which to obtain knowledge of political phenomena is better used in discerning the relative merits of particular methodologies.48 The basic goal of political science, indeed, of any science, is to explain observed phenomena. Its methods include analysis, observation, and measurement--normative valuations are not part of its methodology. The methodological assumptions of science preclude the assertion of certain kinds of evaluative propositions. Imagine a scientist asserting that “osmosis is good; photosynthesis is bad," and you have imagined a meaningless statement. The evalua- tive questions that must interest scientists are methodological 48Abraham Kaplan, The Conduct of Inquiry; Methodology for Behavioral Science (San Francisco, 1964), pp. 364-67ih questions and the av Poli t or about t for explanr reguires as n nts are 1 existing p< to the dis ngl‘i closely re' exDlanatior 29 questions about the guidelines used in the conduct of inquiry and the evaluation of the claims to knowledge.49 Political scientists may disagree about the role of evaluation or about the criteria that an explanation must meet but the search for explanation, and the descriptions upon which explanations depend, requires an explication of the standards by which theoretical state- ments are evaluated. The significance of the re-examination of existing political science theory now underway is its contribution to the discovery of standards of evaluation. Progress in constructing theory in political science is closely related to the critical re-evaluation of the existing explanations. As explanatory structures grow increasingly complex and sophisticated, additional intervening layers of generalizations occur between the observable data and resulting propositions. 49See E. A. Nagel, The Structure of Science (New York, 1963), ch. 13. Max Weber, the author of Wértfreihiet, concieved a social science because he was "passionately invalved in the events of his day" (Reinhard Bendix, Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait [Garden City, N.O., 1962], pp. 267469. And Sigmund Neumann argues for the necessity to understand the political context of Weber's writings and the special relationship between traditional German universities and the German government; the contextual analysis casts doubt on the adequacy of the usual translation of "a science free from value judgments." The present trend may be understood as a correction of a misunderstanding rather than as an innovation and addition, as is suggested by Harry Eckstein, "Political Science and Paglgg Policy," in Contemporary Political Science, ed., Pool, PP- ' - Tie valida‘. the fit at for carefi.‘~ mm a ‘ l i i F r 3.4 rt.“ .fi 53Rcte Contention, as to "ex;- and would in order t. of evaluat goodness, , criteria t: Roland Peru and Politi his positii t8 the fur 30 The validation of theoretical frameworks becomes more difficult, the fit between data and theorem becomes more loose, and the need for careful evaluation becomes more urgent.50 50Robert A. Dahl, "The Evaluation of Political Systems," in Contemgorary Political Science, ed., Pool, p. 167, defines "evaluation" as to expoundexplicit standards of performance for political systems and would apply these standards in a careful and systematic way. . in order to appraise their performance. “ The elements of a standard of evaluation would include: "Criteria of value, worth, excellence, goodness, desirability, data . . . : and ways of applying the criteria to the behavior of the system.“ (pp. 169-70). He cites Roland Pennock's article, "Political Development, Political Systems, and Political Goods," World Politics, 18 (1966): 415-34, to illustrate his poSition. Pennock is concerned with contributing a standard to the functional analysis of capabilities or systems performances. CHAPTER II COMPARATIVE SYSTEMS THEORY Systemic Foundations Despite the success of the scientific revolution contemporary social science in terms of formal theory is underdeveloped. There is little dispute about that statement, only frustration. However, there is a lively discussion about the relative levels of wealth within the disciplines of social science. And, if cross-disciplinary fertilization is a reliable indicator, some areas of social science are relatively rich in useful formulations. The democratic struc- ture of the social sciences works to the advantage of the "depressed areas“ in that the "wealth" tends to be shared. The relative scarcity of much theory directs the attention of social scientists to the abundance of quasi-theoretical formu- lations as the next best alternative.1 The criteria of utility, clarity, power, and simplicity, when used to measure the present state of systems analysis, lead many social scientists to conclude this analytic approach to empirical study provides a more organized account than do others.2 This organization, in fact, is a necessary condition for the accomplishment of two of social science's primary functions: explanation and prediction. 1Richard Rudner, PhilOSOphy of Social Science (Englewood Cliffs, NoJo, 1966), pp. 10-530 2Abraham Kaplan, The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science (SanFrancisco, 1964), pp. 311-22. 31 - -—-h' work, hone works in c; avide var use of for i which of t' be nost us. of an alt: theories, reasons to conceptual SUCCESS by 5‘38th CO The r steadily s lessens thl examinatio r‘Ecenr; as l” SClenti DTESQnt a: 32 Systems analysis is not the only significant conceptual frame- work, however, for there are at least two other conceptual frame- works in contemporary political science which hold great promise: a wide variety of psychological explanations and formalism, or the use of formal or logical models.3 No one can predict at this point which of the three conceptual frameowrks will ultimately prove to be most useful. Nor can one predict the possibility of the emergence of an altogether new conceptual framework that would outdate systems theories, psychological theories, and formal models. There are reasons to suppose systems theory has an advantage over alternative conceptual approaches and reasons to argue the probability of greater success by using a systems concept. But the argument for selecting systems concepts remains a probabilistic argument. The role of psychological conceptual frameworks has grown steadily since the end of World War II. The decline in influence of some of the early sociological theorists such as Emile Durkheim lessens their strict injuctions to exclude psychology from social examination.4 A major innovator of empirical social science as recent as Arthur F. Bentley would allow no space for "mind spooks" in scientific explanation.5 Use of psychological concepts abounds at present and its influence is widespread. 3James A. Gould and Vincent V. Thursby, Contemporary Political Thought: Issues in Scope, Value, and Direction (New York, 1969), pp. 91:101. Afsimilar evaluationfiis foundhin Eugene J. Meehan, Contemporary Political Thought: A Critical Study (Homewood, Ill., 1967). PP. 96-101. 4Emile Durkheim, Rules of the Sociological Method (New York, £96?), Sarah A. Solovay and’John H. Mueller, trans., and George E. G. at in, ed. 5Karl R. Popper, The_9pen Society and Its Enemies (New York, 1964), p. 91, presents a current argument for excluding psychology. .Iu [15:11; ‘1 1 4 less, . tists i unsyste theorie DSjchl separati 0f human 0T scienr seoaratic 33 The incorporation of psychology in political science is a useful, reasonable addition to a theoretical endeavor. Neverthe- less, the borrowing of concepts from psychology by political scien- tists for purposes of political explanation remains eclectic and unsystematic.6 Selected behavioral theories,7 Gestalt or "field theories,8 and psychoanalytic theories9 are the preferred forms of psychological explanation adopted for purposes of political analysis. But however green the pastures in the fields of psychology appear to political scientists, a fence remains. And it is not only a formal academic fence. If it were only a question of tradition separating the study of political activity for a psychological study of human behavior, the separation might well end. There are reasons of science compelling a division of labor. The evidence for the separation is found in the existence of various schools of psychology, 6A major attempt to rectify this condition is Morton Deutsch and Robert M. Krauss, Theories in Social Psychology (New York, 1965). 7B. F. Skinner, Science and Human Behavior (Glencoe, Ill., 1965), is a foremost exponent of neo-behavioral theory. Lester W. Milbrath has made advancement in the use of an S-R model in his Political Participation (Chicago, 1965). 8Several significant works applying "field" theory to political data are Herbert A. Simon and James G. March, Organizations (New York, 1958); Robert T. Golembiewski, Behavior and Dr anization (Chicago, 1962); and Sidney Verba, Small GFOups an olitical Behavior (Princeton, 1961). 9Freudian and neo-Freudian theories are develOped by Harold D. Lasswell, Psychppathology and Politics (New York, 1962), p. 247. His position is parallel to that of Karen Horney, Neurosis and Human Growth (New York, 1950). 'The works of Erik H. Erikson, Childhood' and Society, 2nd ed. (New York, 1963); idem, Young Man Luther: A Study in Psychoanalysis and History (New York, 1958), are works of single importance. Illustrative applications are Lucian W. Pye, Politics, Personality, and Nation-Building: Burma's Search for Identit (New Haven, Conn., 1962) and Robert B. Presthus, The Organ zational Society; An Analysis and a Theory (New York:_1962). mm Fri the varl ewe-gen” in the 5 new T039 mdem .9 eiridetifi‘3 likely t' social 6! Sock explainec asdemons group pro continued Anot recent inr nathenatic reaches St the use of Senarate t One such t 34 from Freudian to the most rigorous Skinnerian schools, as well as the variety of psychological concepts, from physiological to "humanistic" concepts. Because of the variety, a creative expansion in the scope of the psychological study of behavior is underway; new modes of collaboration and new data are amenable to analysis in modern psychology. But the conclusion to be drawn from this evidence of vitatility and explansion is that psychology is more likely to continue as a separate Specialization in the study of social action. Some forms of complex human behavior simply cannot be wholly explained by psychologists. An integration is possible, surely, as demonstrated by the collaborative research efforts in small- group processes.10 Yet, a productive balance depends on the continued separation of the disciplines. Another interesting development in political theory is the recent increased use of formal models, simulations, and other mathematical structures in the study of politics. The development reaches substantially beyond the incorporation of statistics and the use of probability theory in political analysis and merits separate treatment in any classification of political theory.ll One such treatment of mathematical innovations in theory designates the trend as “Formalism.”2 TOSee Barry F. Collins and Harold Guetzkow, A Social Psychology, of Group Processes for Decision-Making (New York,T1964). 11As pointed out by Michael Haas, “Aggregate Analysis" World Politics, 19 (1966): 106-21, the development of aggregate data analysis continues the search for quantification in the social sciences. See Arthur S. Banks and Robert B. Textor, A Cross-Polity Survey (Cambridge, Mass., 1963), and Bruce Russett gt_§1}, World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators (New Haven, Conn., 1964). leugene J. Meehan, Contemporary Political Thought: A Critical Study (Homewood, Ill., 1967), p. 298. An as directing innovation anoroach. constitutir activities discussion models, am i'uigrent o: in referem istic or it The the orlliriated leiaratus a SlSnificani t’legry has and apply 1 tear film, cfiemeti cg 35 An assessment of formalism as a source of theory useful for directing political research is complicated by the newness of the innovation, its rather slow progress, and the difficulty of the approach. Generally, there are four separable kinds of activity constituting a formalistic approach to political analyses. The activities are: the creation of models, application of models, discussion of the metatheoretical problems in creating and using modees, and use of borrowed models in another science. Whether a judgment of the potential of formalism to generate theory is made in reference to one of the kinds of activity categorized as formal- istic or formalism generally, the judgment is equivocal. The most promising results have been obtained by using models originated in other sciences, abstracting them from their formal apparatus and applying them to political data. Perhaps the most significant use of formal theory is the theory of games. Game theory has done more to persuade political scientists to develop and apply fbrmal mathematics to social science than any of the other formalistic modes of procedure.‘3 Communications theory and cybernetics are also useful sources for formal models.14 And the 13A good introduction is Martin Shubik, ed., Game Theor and Related Approaches to Social Behavior (New York, 1964). See also Merton A. Kaplan,“§ystems andTProcess in International Politics (New York, 1957), and Anatol Rapoport, Two-Person Game Theory: The Essential Ideas (Ann Arbor, 1966). 14A good explanation and comparison is found in Karl W. Deutsch, The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control (New York. 1963), Ch} 47' See also Richard R. Fagen, Politics and Communication (New York, 1966), chs. l and 2, and Wilber Schramm, Mass Media and National Development: The Role of Information in the Developjpg:iountries (Stanfbrd,'1§64), for an extensive bibliography., most 509‘ sinulatio are used Sinc beyond to to note i the inner. vhich its pessimist in pressi A re lies the functiona but it is exactly h“ tendency V 36 most sophisticated use of formal theory is found in the field of simulation (both computer and non-computer) where formal models are used to generate, test, and clarify theoretical propositions.15 Since formalism must be judged on its merits, the task falls beyond the boundaries of the present assignment. It is important to note its appearance as well as indicate its equivocal status at the moment. Its ultimate importance depends upon the extent to which its potential is realized. Some present critics are too pessimistic and premature. And some advocates are too enthusiastic in pressing their claims. General Systems A review of modern theory in social science disciplines justi- fies the comment, "We are all systems theorists; we are all functionalists." Such a generalization may be broadly accurate, but it is likely to be disputed when attempts are made to explain exactly what kind of systems theory one has in mind.l6 There is a tendency among systems theorists, as there was a tendency among 15One of the most read and influential demonstrations of the approach is Anthony Downs, An Economic Thepry of Democracy (New York, 1967). A contrasting demonstratiOnlis'found'ih Harold Guetzkow et. gfl,, Simulation in International Relations: Developments for ReseaFEh and Training (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1963). Still another type ofapproach is W. H. Riker, Theory of Political Coalitions (New Haven, Conn., 1964). 16Donald Martindale, ed., Functionalism in the Social Sciences: The Strengths and Limits of Functionalism in Anthropology, Economicsg Political Science,yand"Sociology (Philadelphia, 1965). of a part a particu way as to and those concept i intellect 30. house div bone of 2: functions full deve- inhibitec concept_ TDUhdafic, \ ”ha and Revis f 37 the Republicans and Federalists in Jefferson's day, to be partisans of a particular formulation of systems theory.]7 The partisans of a particular version of systems theory define "system" in such a way as to encourage the taking of sides by those who are "Systemists" and those who are not.18 The division generated by the use of the concept is often deepened by the implication that the school is an intellectual pioneer engaged in blazing the trail for social science. 50, on further examination, the systems theorists are as a house divided. As a result they sometimes produce a "substantive bone of academic contention."19 The idea of social system sometimes functions as a "jail for research rather than an aid to it."20 The full development of the concept of "system" in social analysis is inhibited by the ambiguous status of the proper explination of the concept. As a consequence the progress in theory-building on the foundation of systems analysis is inhibited. 17Harry Eckstein, "The Concept of 'Political System': A Review and Revision,“ a paper delivered at the 1963 annual meeting of The American Political Science Association, New York City, Sept. 4-7. in which he identifies eight definitions of the concept current in political science literature. 13Hilliam Flanigan and Edwin Fogelman, "Functionalism in Political Science." in Functionalism in the Social Sciences, ed., Martindale, p. ll6, identify three modes ofsystems analysis with one mode, structural-func- tional analysis, calling itself "scientific" to distinguish it from the other two modes. 19Peter Nettl, "The Concept of System in Political Science," Political Studies, l4 (1966): 314. ingarion J. Levy. The Structure of Society (Princeton, 1952), p. x i . An 1" rent of S.‘ Oran Your; a: 5' cs 5.‘ He then p' and the f: 'S‘jsternisi corpus of ”tithing a; criticize nous) USE! 01‘ even at tontradic: ltsentatii E5805, an: But 1' Systems trl \I 21 Pmticai 38 An illustration of a typical debate can be found in an assess- ment of systems theory by a proponent of general systems theory. Oran Young argues, The divergences among political scientists are clearly of major proportions, and there is a significant lack of agreement on the use of con- cepts . . . political scientists use general systems theory casually and unsystematically.21 He then proceeds to list deficient understandings of the concept and the frequency of their (mis)use by different kinds of "systemists." He does this on the assumption that there is a fixed corpus of method that alone is “systems theory." But he says nothing about the assumption he has made which enables him to criticize the assumptions made by others (by his perspective erro- nous) users of systems theory. He suggests the inappropriateness of even discussing the essentially different, and sometimes contradictory, concepts of systems theory. In short, he is rep- resentative of a school of thought which understands general systems theory and its application as no longer a concept but as proven methodology and philosophy of science.22 But the argument about the logical consistency of general systems theory, as Young understands it, is by no means concluded.23 210. R. Young, "The Impact of General Systems Theory on Political Science," General Systems, 9 (1964): 247. ZZSee O. R. Young, Systems of Political Science (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., l968), chs. Zafidi3, for his further comments on the indiscriminate assimilation of all forms of systems analysis by political science. 23Statements in support of Young's position are fOund in nearly any edition of the journal, General Systems. Selected works supporting Young's position are: L. vonBertalanffy, "General Systems Theory," Main Currents of Modern Thought, ll (l955): 276-95; Kenneth Boulding, Conflict and Defense: K’General Theory (New York, ,. Systems a' .JI a icmal l. science a; (who won]. concerni r_ tobeaSi critics. ' of the co fornalize I962); Ct_ Sciences, and A. Re i- R. Rec Kingsley i ‘9 Social (35.9); 7; .. I I 39 Systems analysis as a cognitive technique around which to build a formalized social science is disputed among philosophers of science as well as social scientists.24 Philosophers of science (who would presumably serve as ultimate arbitrators of the questions concerning the scientific dimensions of social explanation) tend to be as skeptical of Young's claim as are Young's social scientific critics. They ask mainly questions about the logical consistency of the concept's application; and they deny the assumption of a formalized science that Young claims.25 1962); Charles D. McClelland, "General Systems and the Social Sciences," ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 18 (1962): 449-68; and A. Rapoport, Fights, Games, and Debates (Ann Arbor, 1960). A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, A Natural SCience of Society_(New York, 1957), Kingsley Davis, "The Myth of Fonctional Analysis as a Special Method in Sociology and Anthropology," American Journal of Sociology, 24 (1959): 757-72. 24Theodore Lowi, "Toward Functionalism in Political Science: The Case of Innovation in Party Systems," American Political Science Review 58 (1963): 570-83;:idem, The End of"Libera1ism (New York, 968 . Ralf Dahrendorf, "Out of Utopia,“ American Journa1 of Sociology, 64 (1958): 115-27; I. L. Horowitz,"Sociology and Politics: The Myth of Functionalism Revisited," The Journal of Politics, 25 (1963): 248-64. 25Pertinent critical comments in a sometimes acrid debate are f0und in: Carl G. Hempel, “The Logic of Functional Analysis," in Symposium on Sociological Theory, ed., Llewellyn Gross (Evanston, Ill., 1959), pp. 271-307; Alvin Gouldner, "Reciprocity and Autonomy in Functional Theory," in Sym osium, ed., Gross, pp. 241-70; N. G. Runciman, Social Science and Bolitical Theory (New York, 1963), pp. 117-30. A. Kaplan, Conduct ofInquiry, pp. 364-67. Supporters of functionalism are: Ernest A. Nagel, "A Formalization of Func- tionalism,” in Logic Without Metaphysics and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science, ed., Ernest A. Nagel (New York,*1959); F. Cancian,WFunctional Analysis of Change," in American Journal of Sociolo , 25 (1960): 818-27, provides a bibliography of works defending ghe scientific dimensions of functionalism. hi.‘u-.._.ni.~.:.. Sini who have approach. is such a Rather, i is in its may be no by modern rai'ze am that exter socioiogic Hence, the deveiooed Socio if it is c‘ The fundar 119 founda The Study S'u' 5“ 6S tr 40 Similar critical claims are presented by most sociologists who have had experience in empirical research using a systemic approach. Their experience precludes the conclusion that there is such a thing as "a general body of sociological theory.“26 Rather, it could be argued that sociology and all of social science is in its "natural-history stage of development."27 While there may be no sophisticated body of hierarchial laws such as possessed by modern physics, there is a development in the ability to gene- ralize and classify aggregate data into meaningful categories. To that extent it is possible to talk of a body of inter-connected sociological propositions which provide a map of a problem area.28 Hence, there is available a conceptual schema or logical framework developed by sociology and demonstrated in practice. Sociological theory stands as the originator of social science if it is defined as the analytical study of social life as a whole. The fundamental conception of sociological theory incorporated as the foundation of social science is the concept of social structure. The study of society as it was originally conducted by individual social science disciplines was partial. It was not a social science because aspects of social life were either omitted from examination, such as the family, social stratification, religion, mores, or, 26T. B. Bottomore, Sociology: A Guide to Problems and Literature (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1963), p. 32. 27R. B. Braithwaite, Scientific Explanation: A Study of the Function of Theory, Probability, andiLaw in Science (Cambridge, Mass., T955), p. 22. 285. F. Nadel, The Theory of Social Structure (London, 1957). Put-ALA; they were The esta‘: marked 0t institut‘} avhoie. It T I. to the st; in the ge specializi fmitiess the concei iized ins: which all ailowing t the COME; The “T NCEnt d6v he: bean u tic“ PEha 41 they were cursorily examined and treated as residual categories.29 The established disciplines with historic spheres of social life marked out, failed to show the connections between particular institutions they respectively studied and the social structure as a whole. It is sociology which provides a theoretical orientation to the study of whole societies. The historic failure to specialize in the general conception of social organization doomed the historic specialization in the study of specific social organizations to fruitless generalizing. The deficiency has been remedied with the concept of a comprehensive framework for the study of specia- lized institutions.30 A Comprehensive framework of analysis in which all social scientists specialize enables specialization by allowing both comparison and comprehension. At the moment, then, the concept of social system is the predominant paradigm which makes a science possible. The use of sociological theory in political science is a recent development. But varieties of structural-functional analysis had been used by other branches of social science to study poli- tical behavior for a generation before political scientists adopted it.31 29Roscoe and Gisela Hinkle, The Development of Modern Sociology, (New York, 1954). 3°Iottomore, Sociology: A Guide, ch. 1. 31$ignificant statements of structural-functional analysis began to appear before World War II but the major breakthrough occured after 1945. Two important (and still useful) statements are Bronislaw Malinowski, “Culture," in Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, vol. 4 (New York, 1930): 621-45, and AT R. Radcliffe- §rown, “0n the Concept of Function in Social Science," American Anthropologist, 37 (1935): 92-137. The innovations they pioneered were deveToped by others into the studies by sociologists of poli- tical parties, social groups, electoral behavior, and public admini- stration appearing in the early 19505. Asocioio poiitical behavior : poiitical were irprc to grips v. ticai scic- was genera science, c by older c The ((1 ifipressed . the SCOpe { Items by 0: in develop. already us:- Tharp ”as 5 litemisd: 42 A sociological approach to politics had two merits which attracted political scientists.32 The growing body of data on political behavior presented a detailed picture of aspects of contemporary political life. Overall, the fruits of the sociological approach were impressive to a political science seeking a new method to come to grips with new phenomena. The "demonstration effect" on poli- tica1 science of theoretical developments in other social sciences was genera1 but it was pronounced in some areas of political science, comparative government in particular, still time-bound by older concepts. The generality of the approach was the second aspect that impressed some political scientists. It seemed possible to broaden the scope of political science in both empirical and conceptual terms by one innovation. Due to the role anthropologists played in developing and applying structural-functional analysis, it was already used to study non-Western and non-industrial societies. There was a promise of further development of its usefulness as interdisciplinary area studies increased the evidence of its scope. Furthermore, since it was already in use, a platfbrm upon which the social sciences could unify themselves seem available. But structural-functional analysis, despite its appeal, could not be simply incorporated into political science in its original fbrm. Nhile students of comparative politics were enriched by their association with other social scientists who did use this 32H. V. Hiseman, Political Systems: Some Sociological Approaches (New York, 1966). ; . l Hg‘li‘ 4" TavJ approach. as it exis tvas one in a coopc scientists The 5 social sci adopted ar. the relati: aspects of their CDDCt 43 approach, it could not yet be adopted. The problem with the approach as it existed was just that: it existed as a sociological approach.33 It was one thing to combine political and other social sciences in a cooperative study; but, it was another thing for political scientists alone to attempt a political analysis with these tools. The study of political behavior developed by non-politica1 social scientists had a non-political result.34 The point of view adopted and the concepts used were focused only intermittantly on the relationship of the political process and society, or selected aspects of each. The political process itself was peripheral to their concern and consequently only segments of political behavior were analyzed. They were not interested in the patterns of poli- tica1 behavior or the institutions of the political systems. Thus, political scientists had to adopt an approach developed to serve another purpose than the one they had in mind. Consequently, the ascendance of sociological theory had the effect on political science of eliminating a long-standing division of opinion about the nature of the political system.35 Historically, 33Marion J. Levy, "Some Questions About the Concepts of Culture and Social System," American Sociological Review, 24 (1959): 247-48. 34An informative series of articles defining, comparing, and contrasting different systemic concepts in order to overcome such oversights are James G. Miller, "Living Systems: Basic Concepts,“ Behavioral Science, 10 (1965): 193-237; idem, "Living Systems: Structure and Process," ibid.: 337-79; idem, "Living Systems: Cross-Level Hypothesis," ibid.: 380-411. 35Lucian N. Pye, "The Formation of New States," in Contemporary Political Science: Toward Empirical Theory, ed., Ithiel deSola Pool (New York. 1967)} PP. 182-203, argues for the assertion of a "poli- tical“ theory of political development based on an assumption of autonomy for the political system. the quest behavior 1 iron stat; state-rent: types of 2' configurat' about the 4 But a to assert a reflecti: true that i the societ_ Motive d4 1 Sfltlai 5573: 31Hot kir 44 the question of the relationship of the political aspects of social behavior to society was answered by a variety of opinions ranging from statements of the identity of the social and political, to statements asserting the superiority of the political to all other types of social acts, to statements attributing causality to social configurations. There was no single and commonly accepted agreement about the sovereignty of the political system.1 But assumptions made by sociologists led political scientists to assert the structure and functions of the political system was a reflection of underlying social and economic conditions. It is true that sociologists differed about the kind of linkages between the society and the political system and hence argued about the relative degree of subordination of the political system to the social system. But the disagreement was a disagreement of degree and not kind.36 There was a fundamental assumption to the effect that the political elements could be understood by some mode of reductionism of the political to the social. One of the striking characteristics in earlier systems analysis was the lack of a careful study of the political system itself. The focus of attention was society as a whole; the relationship of one of the important and obvious parts to the whole was of secondary importance. Obviously they could not discuss everything at once and professional division of labor dictated specialization. 36Ra1f Dahrendorf, Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (Stanfbrd, 1959), defines and compares two major types of sociological theory based on an assumption of harmony (such as structural-functional analysis) or an assumption of conflict (such as Marxian analysis), but finds both agree on a sociological casuality. There was played ir. scientist The i by ooiiti; tive can ; the there: it is use? the idea 0 Within the the way in 7'0: ”‘6 p intmduced ammpolog v . ‘ ~ re ‘nltTa'. L‘s“. Jivlons Of “m, P ""“a-’8 Li ve ‘ ”l 45 There was some indication of the role the political sub-system played in the functioning of the whole system, but political scientists found little that was of immediate use. Sociological Politics The attraction of sociological theory and the problems encountered by political science in its attempts to adopt the sociological perspec- tive can be illustrated by a brief examination of the place held by the themes of change, evolution, and progress in sociological theory. It is useful to select this example for a two-fold reason. One, the idea of sociological and now political comparison originates within the discipline of sociology and it is necessary to examine the way in which the problem has been treated from this perspective. Two, the possibility of a truly comparative study rests in a funda- mental sense on the applicability of theoretical sociological inno- vations to political actions. Modern comparative politics was introduced to the concept of development and guided in the appli- cation of the concept in empirical research by sociologists and anthropologists. The initial experience in empirical research and the initial exposure to the concept are perhaps the decisive contri- butions of sociological practice and theory to the modern study of comparative political systems. The sociological perspective emerged as a consequence of a "philosophy of history and with interpretations of the rapid and violent changes in European societies in the 18th and 19th centuries."37 37Bottomore, ibid., ch. 16. The new c proviced conceivec vas shift system of the insti‘ agencies. of socioi: The quest" Ship of t: "is to ex: 0‘ this the 0f non-inc Dresented T 0f politic ‘1‘ . "Jr‘ologles In ea 46 The new distinction between "state" and "society" that resulted provided a basis for the discipline of sociology. Society was conceived of as being more than political society; the emphasis was shifted toward civil society conceived of as an inter-related system of social institutions in which the state was only one of the institutions of social control, albeit one of the more important agencies. It was no longer possible, according to these fathers of sociology, to understand society by understanding the "state." The question of interest to sociologists was: What is the relation- ship of the state to civil society? The approach to this question was to explore the origins and deve10pment of the state. The use of this method to pursue the question led increasingly to the study of non-industrialized societies as a basis of comparison. It also presented the problem of classifying social systems. So the field of political sociology appeared to construct sociological typologies. In early sociological theory the notions of "evolution, change, and progress" were confused by being compounded into a single concept. The writings of men such as Comte and Spencer could be read as illustrations of this tendency. They tended to assert and exaggerate the historic uniqueness of the "state“ as it existed in industrialized societies by pointing to its supposed absence in non-industrialized societies. A conclusion often drawn, already implicit in their definition of development, was that man organized his social life in a "primitive" society without relying on a political structure, and man would eventually “rationalize" the political structure then existing in "developed" industrial societies in much the same fashion. 47 Modern sociological approaches continue to accept the distinction between state and society but are more precise in their discussion of "development."38 They recognize an undue emphasis on kinship and other forms of non-political structures in early sociological studies as well as a lack of emphasis on political organizations different in structure from the modern democratic state.39 The concept of development is used differently also. The belief in evolutionary progress is no longer a central component of sociological theory. Instead, development is understood to refer to a distinction between industrial and non-industrial societies and the process by which the latter become industrialized. The current understanding has two important connotations: it refers to a particular kind of change occuring in a particular society at a specified time; and it refers predominately to economic changes identifiable and measurable with some precision in terms of the sociological consequences of such change. The present understanding makes explicit much of what was implicit in the earlier understanding, i.e., an emphasis on economic development defined as the growth of knowledge and control over nature and the consequences of such changes in the power of human production. Subsequent developments have further 50phisticated the kind and variety of variables within the scope of sociological research. 38A major correction to "evolutionary" theories occured as a result of Issac Shapera, Government and Politics in Tribal Societies (New York, 1956). 39The theoretical problems inherent in systematic comparison of different types of political systems are discussed in Walter Buckley, Sociology and Modern Systems Theory (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., wail. pp. 4-15. The SCOT: of behavi sociolog‘ oi the a. by both 5 nations v. be aSyme once adv: of addit‘.’ system is 48 The scope of theory now allows the inclusion of attitudinal dimensions of behavior in a manner consistent with theoretical principles of sociological analysis. It is possible to reconsider the question of the autonomy of the political system.40 And the data obtained by both sociologists and political scientists on change in developing nations would support an argument on the behalf of political autonomy.41 The asymetrical linkage of societal variable and political action once advanced by schools of sociologists, re-examined in the light of additional data, confounds any generalization that the political system is a reflexive system. A Systems Continuum A review of the various uses of the concept of "social system” in different social science disciplines suggests that general categories of systems analysis exists. Underlying the argument among the users of a social systems approach is a pattern in the use of the concept that suggests four general kinds of systems analysis. It has been suggested that these four general categories are abstractions indicating a focus of interest that emphasizes different elements of a systems approach. Before reviewing the kinds of systems analyses, it is neces- sary to keep in mind that the concept is used on two distinct levels 40Recent studies of ideological variables in political systems, especially the political systems of developing nations, attempt to define the problem. See Mary Matossian, "Ideologies of Delayed Industrialization: Some Tensions and Ambiguities," in Political Change in Underdeveloped Countries ed., John H. Kautsky (NewlYork, T952), pp. 252-64, and David E. Apter, ed., Ideology and Discontent (Glencoe, Ill., 1964). 41H. J. Spiro, "An Evaluation of Systems Theory," in Contemporary Political Analysis, ed., James C. Charlesworth (New York, 1967) and— W. G. Runciman, Social Science and Political Theory (New York, 1963). of neani: as an ir‘ the tone; reference to stric‘ An 1 sense nC‘ is used ' assumed : a aloc‘ data. I: Unnecessa is used. through c is this ; oooulari; HOW; i i 0f Sh’StEr if it lnzt 49 of meaning: Postulation and Intuition.42 A Postulate system exists as an integral part of a logically related conceptual schema. When the concept is used in this fashion, it is understood to be a reference to a formalized conceptual framework elaborated according to strict rules of logical inference. An Intuitative system, however, refers to the general common sense notion of inter-relation among phenomena. When the concept is used in this fashion, it should be understood to refer to an assumed connection between ordered phenomena without any reference to a logical scheme or hypotheses validation based upon systematic data. It is important to keep the distinction in mind to avoid unnecessary confusion when the notion of "systemic explanation" is used. In one general sense any and all attempts at explanation through description is "systemic."43 And more often than not it is this general intuitive use of "system" that underlies the popularity of a "systems approach“ to political analysis. However it is used, it properly can be called a systems analysis if it incorporates these three minimal elements of the definition of’system: l. The object of analysis is an inter-dependent 3231:;and not merely a collection of aggregate 2. The object consists of elements in interdependent action and not merely a random contact; 42F. C. S. Northrup, The Logic of the Sciences and the Humanities (New York, 1959). pp. 18-29. 43Eugene J. Meehan, Explanation ig_Social Science: A System Paradi m Homewood, Ill., 1968), pp. 9-14, discusses different conceptions of "explanation." Tnis dei‘ iorhal ca comonpl. continuuT to be neTI Suggest i that it i deiinitii of a Sysi comm “J A p1 it analy; vhich ea differem thESe d“ 50 3. The object is open in that its behavior depends on internal as well as external factors; its behavior is a consequence of its relationship with an environment; hence, it is neither a closed nor a mechanistic reflexive system.44 This definition of system would be too informal to satisfy the formal definition of social system and too formal to satisfy the commonplace definition of system. It occupies a midpoint on the continuum of definitions.45 Nevertheless, it has sufficient rigor to be meaningfblly used in analytical explanation. In fact, I suggest it is a more useful definition than a more rigorous one in that it can be used heuristically in situations where a formal definition would not be applicable. It increases the applicability of a systems approach while elevating the ordinary standards of common use. A preview of the difficulties in using a systems approach to analyze social action can be seen by examining the extent to which each category of systems analysis uses in its own analysis different types of system. The following chapters will explore these difficulties in some detail. The method which will be used to explore these conceptual problems of systems analysis is to construct conceptual frameworks based on the explanatory units used in inquiry. The classification 441 am primarily indebted to Nettl, "The Concept of System in Political Science,": 307, and Meehan, Explanation in Social Science. pp. 69-79, for this criteria. 45The polar opposites of the continuum are illustrated by definitions demanding a complete calculas such that any and all variations in the state of the variables are knowable in advance, and, definitions requiring so many feedback loops any and all variations in the state of the variables are explained by reference to unknowable "external" factors. See also fn. 52. of conc species differ assunct divisio sary in itself, Dmcnel systens. will be the worn Systems illustra e’i‘ili'ica Perform Almnd .4. 51 of conceptual frameworks schema is a procedure by which to evaluate species of the genus, political systems. The conceptual frameworks differ because different principles are emphasized and different assumptions are deduced as broad guidelines for analysis. The division of systems analysis into conceptual frameworks is neces- sary in order to reveal the general framework of systems analysis itself, as well as the specific frameworks within the general family. The four general categories of systems analysis range from precisely formulated postulate systems to loosely organized intuitive systems. The most formal and exact use of a social systems approach will be called "A Functional System." It is best illustrated by the works of Talcott Parsons.46 A similar but less exact form of systems analysis will be called "An Analogue System." It is best illustrated by the work of David Easton.47 The most specific and empirical form of systems analysis will be called "A Specific- Performance System." It is best illustrated by the work of Gabriel Almond.48 Lastly, the most general and loosely fOrmulated variety of 46The significance of Parsons is clearly present in the work of Neil J. Smelser, Social Change in the Industrial Revolution (Chicago, 1959). 47Talcott Parsons praises Easton's conceptualization as ". . . an integral part of the theory of action" in (“Some Highlights of the Theory of Action" Approaches to the Study of Politics, ed., Roland Young [Evanston, Ill), 1958], p. 30ll} The further—impact of Easton's "analogue" systems approach is apparent in Karl W. Deutsch, The Nerves of Government (New York, 1963), pp. 26-34. 48Perhaps the best evidence for the influence of Almond's conceptualization is the series of publications, "Studies in Political Development," by Princeton University Press, as well as the Little, Brown Series in Comparative Politics. systens i is best i where it hm ac the diff systemTll approacr: difficul‘ is so cc' Contrlbt‘ if it is formulate Systems - oi the o \ 497 EXtEndec i TEStricU ficUTt t! U 3 I'D ‘ ..J 3' see- 7;, H II) 1: U I“— 52 systems analysis will be called "A Problem Solving System." It is best illustrated in speculative and impressionistic writings where it is used to suggest a general inter-dependence.49 Each of the major formulations of a systems analysis explores the difficulties in discussing the inter-relationships of social systems, sub-systems, and cultural framework. The problem is approached differently and presented differently which makes it difficult to compile a general formulation.50 Indeed, the question is so comprehensive that any general proposition that seeks to contribute to its resolution must rely upon many qualifications if it is to be meaningful. Nonetheless, the propositions must be formulated because social science must solve the problem of macro- systems and microsystems analysis just as economics solved a portion of the problem.51 49The use of "system" as a "sensitizing" concept is sometimes extended to include all fOrms of systems analysis rather than restricted to cases where other forms of systems analysis are dif- ficult to apply. The early post-World War II literature on poli- tical development is the best illustration of this mode of "systems" analysis. See James A. Gregor, "Political Science and the Uses of Egnctional Analysis," American Political Science Review, 62 (1968): 5-39. 50Ronald P. Dore, "Function and Cause," American Sociological Review, 26 (1961): 843-53, and Young C. Kim, 1‘The Concept of Polifical Culture in Comparative Politics,“ The Journal of Politics, 26 (1964): 313-36, fOr a discussion of the problem ofidentifying and describing the probability or autonomous factors. 51There is a suggestive analogy in the history of economic theory as it moved from classical or Smithian theory to modern or Keynesian theory. The shift in theoretical perspective exposed differences between macro- and micro-economic problems formerly obscured by the writings of Adam Smith. , if“. The from its appears analysis structur does not Even a t construe research an insta be disco is not a reveal w The theory, °f SYSte \ 52;. “tagoril 95min: ”mica: Cfi "Sc Westley: and thus unit is a“ pat: 53 The present utility of structural-functional analysis stems from its moderation rather than logical rigor. The analytic problem appears extreme so long as a discussion of structural-functional analysis is restricted to this dimension.52 Admittedly, the analytic structure is incomplete in all forms of systems analysis, but this does not preclude its useful application in empirical research. Even a tentative identification of functional problems permits the construction of a classification that can be used for empirical research of particular social units. If the empirical unit is an instance of the theoretical category, some sort of data will be discovered for each of the requisite structures. If the unit is not an instance of the theoretical category, the data will reveal whether and to what degree the behavior is analogous. The source for the moderation, hence, the usefulness of systems theory, is found in the idea of function. The functional categories of systems analysis refer to a general phenomena that has always concerned social analysts: How do you explain the recurrence of 52Among the dangers inherent in the use of fbrmal, analytical categories of systems analysis is the problem of the linkage between description and formal categorization. Levy observes the following implication: Is the empirical unit that is supposed to be an example of a “society" actually a society? An unqualified answer to the question would presuppose the full knowledge sought by the inquiry and thus dispense with the empirical examination. If the empirical unit is in fact a "whole society" its structures and functions and patterns of action would be known by definition. If the unit cannot be so identified and its characteristics deduced from the fbrmal analytical categories, can it be answered at all? The implication that concerns Levy is the assumption sometimes made by formal systems theory that completed analytical categories are necessary for description and explanation. The consequence of such an assumption would be to invalidate empirical inquiry since action could not be identified or measured. (Marion J. Levy, "Some Aspects of Structural-Functional Analysis and Political Science," in Approaches to Politics, ed., Young , pp. 53-55). 54 certain problems in social life and contrasting solutions to these problems? The theoretical expression of this pehnomena as "function- alism" is the latest attempt to systematically unravel this pattern in human life, and "discover a standard, exhaustive array of types of patterns."53 53Robert Chin, "The Utility of System Models and Develop- mental Models," in Political Development and Social Change, eds., Jason L. Fingle and Richard W. Gable (New York, 1966), pp. 7-28. CHAPTER III A FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM Conceptual Scope The use of a functional systems approach appears first in the writings of social anthropologists.‘ However, the best exponent of a functional system is Talcott Parsons. He is primarily res- ponsible for the elaboration and formalization of the concepts applied today in sociology and political science. The purpose of Parsons' theorizing is to construct an “ideal theoretical system . . . a deductive propositional system in which all propositions of empirical relevance should be strictly deducible from a small number of basic assumptions."2 His goal infuses his prolific writings with a complex logic that is often all but impossible to unravel. The meaning of some of his statements are unclear to even convinced exponents of Parsonian concepts and 1Bronislaw Malinowski, who was Parsons' teacher, and A. R. Radcliffe-Brown are the best sources for early functionalist writings. Parsons came to functionalist theory due to the influence of these men rather than sociologists. See Talcott Parsons, "A Short History of My Intellectual Development," Alpha Kappa Deltan, 29 (no. 1, 1959): 3-12. Early formulations of fdnctionalism are f0und in Bronislaw Malinowski, The Dynamics of Cultural Change (New Haven, Conn., 1945) and A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, Structure and Function in Primitive Society (New York, 1956). 2Talcott Parsons, “Recent Trends in Structural-Functional Analysis," Fact_and Theory in Social Science, eds., Earl W. Count and T. Bowles (Syracuse, 1964), p. 140. 55 sortin concep' tion r: with a istoi standin edifice 56 generate sharp debates. Moreover, the two major formulations of the social system found in the corpus of his work are difficult for their author to integrate.3 The analysis of Parsons' formulation of social action presented in this chapter concentrates on an explication of the conceptual apparatus he has developed throughout his career. The task of sorting through the various formulations yields the essential concepts presently employed in the theory of action. A distilla- tion reveals a basic continuity in the conceptual apparatus along with a shift of emphasis. The important point for the present is to identify the fundamental assumptions of Parsons' under- standing of the social system, assumptions upon which the vast edifice of detail stand. The theoretical formulation of a social system in functiona- list categories produces four analytically interactive systems: the organic, the personality, the social, and the cultural. Although analytical distinctions between the various systems are possible, with each component of the social system itself analyzable, the whole social system exists in systemic inter-relationship. To fOrmulate a "general theory" of society has been a consistent goal in all of Parsons' writing. He has pursued this goal in two distinct but related formulations of a systems approach to social action.4 The first formulation of a systems model is based on 3Talcott Parsons, "Pattern Variables Revisited: A Response to Robert Dubin,“ American Sociological Review, 25 (1960): 474. Parsons integrates pattern variable analysis and functional imperi- tive analysis at the cost of dropping one of the pattern variables, self-collective orientation. 4Robert Dubin, "Parsons' Actor: Continuities in Social Theory," American Sociological Review, 25 (1960): 468. Dubin sharpens the the P5 enviro on a 5 social unit 0 of val: the se: analyS' values patterr Th despite identif 0n the The two “Entary ldentif but one IS but bEhavi; \ Dennis: 57 the paradigm of the interaction between an individual and his environment. The second formulation of a systems model is based on a social paradigm, the interaction of social units with other social units. In the first “model" the individual is the basic unit of analysis and the emphasis is placed on the internalization of values as the factor contributing to patterned behavior. In the second "model“ the social unit becomes the basic unit of analysis and the emphasis shifts to the institutionalization of values in social structures as the primary factor affecting patterned behavior. The "individual" paradigm and the "social" paradigm of action, despite a shift of emphasis in the two models, are concerned with identifying analytical categories of social behavior.5 The focus on the individual actor yields the pattern variable mode of analysis. The two models are not alternative models of analysis but supple- mentary categories by which aspects of social action may be identified. The two models, that is, are not empirically distinct but analytically identifiable aspects of social action. There is but one set of social action, a general process of goal-motivated behavior, that can be viewed from different perspectives. differences between the two models to a greater extent than is permissible, if Parsons is the judge. Dubin does correctly point out, however, that the later or "social model" has had greater effect on social science. 5"I fully recognize, however, the difficulty in the position of a critic, not only because of the considerable volume of relevant writings and the fact that the position has in fact changed sub- stantially--though I think in the direction of progressive revision and extension rather than of change of fundamental position" (Talcott Parsons, "The Point of View of the Author," The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons, ed., Max Black [Englewood Cliffs, N.J., l96l], p. 347). Iii . chs.-1...“. -. system theory. "models in assur bones 01 imemnt 58 The primary concern of the general theory of action is to produce a conceptual framework grounded in the behavior of the concrete individual yet encompassing the behavior of the most complex social organizations. The shift in conceptual perspective neither changes the foundation of the system concept nor changes the aim of the concept. However, there are different evaluations and uses of the two models. But the overall evaluation of Parsons' concept of the social system depends on an evaluation of the adequacy of the general theory. The most weighty criticism made against the functional model as it exists, a criticism made against both of Parsons' “models" is the "static" and "conservative" bias said to exist as an assumption of the conceptualization. I shall present the bare bones of the two “models" in order to clarify the assumptions inherent in the conceptualization. Microunit Analysis In Talcott Parsons' formulation the concept "system" is a general term fOr "patterned behavior." Parsons' formulation of systems theory is called a "general theory of action" because its funda- mental premise is the "process of interaction."6 Patterned behavior, 6The focus of analysis in the first formulation of general theory is on the unit act of microscopic action. The first three of Parsons' major works share a concern for explaining action on this level. See Talcott Parsons, The Structure of Social Action (New York, 1937); Talcott Parsons and'Edward Shils, eds., lbwarda General Theor of Action (Cambridge, Mass., 1951); Talcott Parsons, Ihg_ Social System (Glencoe, Ill., 1951). Parsons first begins to develop a new approach in Talcott Parsons, R. F. Bales, and Edward Shils, Working Papers in the Theory of Action (Glencoe, Ill., 1953). ‘-'-E " purpo from 1 59 or action, is "motivated" or "goal-meaningful" human activity that produces interaction between the organism and its environment. The most significant aspect of a system is the process of patterned interaction whose purpose is the fulfillment of a desired rela- tionship between the actor and its surroundings.7 Parsons is careful to define "interaction” by reference to purpose or intention because he excludes other types of activity from systems analysis.8 Action or behavior (the terms are synonymous) stated in his terms is distinguished from biological or physio- logical activity internal to an organism, or a relationship between the organism and its environment on which the physiological state is dependent. Behavior other than "goal directed“ behavior, such as involuntary behavior, is excluded.9 The question of the relation- ship between physiological activity and purposeful activity in an organism is beyond the concern of his theory of action, but still a legitimate concern.10 He assumes that "goal-meaningful" behavior 7Parsons, The Social System, pp. 5-7. 8The technical use of the term “interaction" is based on a distinction between objects and interacting objects that are themselves actors or egos. Toward a General Theory of Action, eds., Parsons and Shils, pp. 14-16. 9The example of a simple, mechanistic stimulas-response act such as a moth drawn to light illustrates the type of behavior not included as ”action.“ E. C. Devereaux, Jr., "Parsons' Sociological Theory,"zin The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons, ed., Black, pp. 20-2 . 1OParsons' critical essays on earlier sociological and economic theory stressing "instinctual" or “monocausal determinism" attempt to demonstrate the convergence of such theories in a "general theory.“ See Parsons, The Structure of Social Action, passim. is theor ‘notivat logical Pat hand is and on t another. theoreti refers t and its interact general directed his Surr 0f ”19ml So: types of This its the Plec ObScUm \ ll- 60 is theoretically autonomous behavior; there is no presumption that "motivated" behavior can be explained through a reduction to physio- logical categories. Patterned behavior occurs in two distinct forms: on the one hand is the relationship of the organism to surrounding objects, and on the other hand, the interaction of behaving organisms with one another.11 These different manifestations of behavior appear theoretically as different systems-types. The "psychological system" refers to the patterned interaction between an individual organism and its environment. The "social system" refers to the patterned interaction between behaving organisms or their parts. Thus, the general theory of action seeks to examine all varieties of goal- directed behavior from the relationship between the individual and his surroundings to relationships among the largest collectivies of men.]2 Social systems and psychological systems are not the only types of systems, although Parsons theoretically elevates them. This abstraction for analytical purposes is intended to facilitate the piecemeal examination of a complex whole, and it should not obscure the larger problem of "the total system," or organic system.13 11A complex social system" . . . is to be regarded as a net- work of collectivities side by side, overlapping and larger-smaller. " (Parsons, The Social System, p. 101). But collectivities are systems of statuses abstracted from a system of concretely interactive and specific roles. Ibid. .. Pp 25, 38- 39. 12The ambiguity of selecting the "unit" of analysis which appears in The Social System as both individual units and social units are combined is the impetus for Parsons' later work. 13Essentially three types of systems are used in Toward a General of Action, eds. , Parsons and Shils. The addition of a_?ourth type, an "organic system," distinguishes the later "social" model. 61 The systems-types emphasized in a general theory of action are systematically related not only to one another but also to another important system: the cultural system. Any discussion of purposive behavior requires a discussion of what guides behavior: the system of cognitions, values, and beliefs providing common orientation to the actors within the total social system. Parsons discusses the problem of the frame of reference for social interaction by presenting a "paradigmatic" case.14 An illustrative mode of purposive behavior is the relation- ship between an individual and his inantimate surroundings.15 One fundamental mode of "orientation" that must be considered in dis- cussing goal-directed behavior is "cognition“; in this example the term refers to the process by which external objects, and changes in the conditions of these objects, acquire meaning and are capable of affecting the action of the "observing" actor. Generally cogni- tion is the conventional term for information.16 14Talcott Parsons, "Some Highlights of the General Theory of Action," in Approaches to the Study of Politics, ed., Roland Young (Evanston, Ill., 1959), pp. 284-87. 15A concise summary of "orientation" as a component of the frame of reference is found in Toward a General Theory, eds., Parsons and Shils, pp. 67-76. 151bid., pp. 10-11. The practice of redefining and resusci- tating words into concepts is a dimension of Parsons' theorizing that is criticised from time to time. Parsons‘ practice leads to some of the sharp debates about the meaning of his concepts; for example, see the exchange of letters with J. 5. Coleman about the use of neologisms in Public Opinion Quarterly, 28 (1963): 63-82, 87-92. inter natiO' tion ( cathe: incluc inanin logous and co 35 inf: his in: nation 0f acti evalua. Ir eXists. °f aCto but the 62 The other mode of "orientation"--"cathexis"--refers to the internal state of the actor relative to the impact of the infor- mation about the environment.17 It is a way to discuss the evalua- tion of the information and its effect upon the actor. Generally cathexis is the term for the motivational state of the actor, including values and beliefs. The paradigmatic case of inanimate environment is used by Parsons to clarify the analysis of behavior in a social situation. Although a social system functions within an animate rather than inanimate environment, cognition and cathexis operate in an ana- logous manner.18 In a social situation the actions of other actors and collectivities of actors are the objects which acquire meaning as information. The impact of this perception on the actor affects his intentions as the motivational factor in behavior. The expla- nation and prediction of purposive behavior in the general theory of action requires the use of both categories of information and evaluation.19 Interaction is sggial_only when communication among the actors exists. The behavior must have common meaning for the plurality of actors; not only must the action be observed (information), but the intention behind the action must be understood (motivation). 17Toward a General Theory, eds., Parsons and Shils, pp. 10-11. IBThe notion is expanded to include the idea of "complimentarity of expectations“ in the actions of ego and the reactions of alter. ' Ibid., p. 64. 19Parsons, "Some Highlights," in Approaches to the Study of Politics, Young, p. 285. “salt.- {1 I 7' V 7 - .. is. q“ A soci is pur The an is ess- the “g: I‘ intentf it foll from it? there i a Parti Process to the . drives, or hereJ cannot z \ 2o i“ the l inlng Alvin h' ’eiuire; 00?; \\l 2iT aCtlon C and "t9? tuItUra‘l 22. 5535‘? d‘j oiyn, r Off: 1 . ”Ccuit“ ”"3/: 63 A social system can be said to exist only when the interaction is purposive and the actors commonly understood ghy_it is purposive.20 The analyst of social systems must be a cautious observer since it is essential that he too, even though an observer, correctly identify the_"goal-state" whose realization is the intent of the action. It is a postulate of the theory of action that goals are intentional.2‘ They are treated as constructed guides to action and it fbllows that there is a general source within the total system from which they are selected. Now, since goals are selected, and there is some regularity or pattern in the selection of goals within a particular social system, there must also be a shared learning process.22 Undoubtedly some actions can be understood by reference to the constitutional factor of the organism. There are some primary drives, particularly in the physiological system, that are biological or hereditary. But the most interesting aspects of human behavior cannot be reduced to a physiological level. In any event, Parsons onhere is an implication of the instability endemic in action in the notion of complimentarity. Sanctions are one means of main- taining complimentarity but an insufficient means according to Alvin W. Gouldner. Deviation which would threaten interaction requires a basic "norm of Reciprocity.“ See Alvin W. Gouldner, "The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement," American Socio- lggical Review, 25 (1960): 172-73. 2‘The argument restricts analysis to ". . . Systems of inter- action of a plurality of individual actors oriented to asSttuation and where the system includes a commonly understood system of cultural symbols" (Parsons, The Social System, p. 5). 22The cultural system an undifferentiated concept initially subsumed under the personality system as a sub-system. A critical essay discussing the confusion surrounding the cultural.variables of interaction is Marion J. Levy, "Some Questions about 'The Concepts of Culture and of Social System'," American Sociological Review, 24 (1959): 247-48. ’ 64 is concerned with social interaction, communicated behavior, in which there is a shared understanding among the actors. Again, there must be common meaning assigned to behavior.23 It is the cultural system which is the source for the selection of goals. And, since culture is constructed, that is, learned, communication occurs to the extent to which a culture is shared. A shared cultural system is concomitant to a social system since it provides the conventions which made understanding possible.24 There could be little systemic behavior if the actors could not “understand" the same things by each other's acts. Thus, each actor must use the conventions of the language in approximately the same way if he is to be understood, and vice versa. When most actors in the social situation have learned to associate the same meanings with the same signs, norms are created.25 Whole system boundaries are defined by the degree to which the conventions of the system are followed. In one sense, cultural boundaries and system boundaries coincide, for there must be accepted norms as a bases for interaction. Social interaction occurs to the extent to which cultural norms are followed and this necessary, but not sufficient, condition produces stability within the social g30ne explanation given by Parsons is that the cultural system or social heredity does not function except as part of a concrete action system; "it just 'is'." (Parsons, the Social System, p. l8). 24A. L. Kroeber and Talcott Parsons, ”The Concepts of Culture and Social System,“ American Sociological Review, 23 (l958): 582-83. 25Talcott Parsons, “An Approach to Psychological Theory in Terms of the Theory of Action," in Psychology: A Study of Science, ed., Sigmund Koch (New York, l959). pp. 647-STL 65 situation. The prototype of social stability is found in this identity between social systems and norms.26 The stability of a social system requires adherence to common cultural patterns as a partial solution to the problem of instru- mental and consummatory goals. Since the primary reference point fOr action in any system is the goal-orientation of the actors, there must be limits to the kinds of goals which are pursued.27 The members of a system could not pursue and attain goals which are at the same time mutually incompatible; the goals need not be similar of course, but they must be either consistent with one another or hierarchically arranged to present some program of priorities when conflict occurs .28 The consistency of the norms must extend also to the actions defined as acceptable in pursuit of the goals. The adaptive or instrumental procedures must reflect the end-goal in such a fashion 25"This integration of a set of common value patterns with the internalized need-dispositions structure of the constituent person- alities is the core phenomenon of the dynamics of social systems. That the stability of any social system except the most evanescent interaction process is dependent on a degree of such integration may be said to be the fundamental dynamic theorem of sociology“ (Parsons, The Social System, p. 42). 27"The orientation element, which is most difficult to acquire and which in a sense depends on the most complex set of prerequisite conditions, is, at least under certain types of strain, likely to be the first to break down" (Ibid., p. 226). 28Parsons assumes the "high elaboration of human action systems is not possible without relatively stable symbolic systems where meaning is not predominately contingent on highly particularized situations" (Ibid., p. ll). His discussion of mechanisms of social controldesignea to minimize devience is indeed based on an equili- brium assumption, but an assumption that only entails a tendency toward equilibrium in the processes of a system. See Robin M. Williams,"The Sociological Theory of Talcott Parsons,“ in The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons, ed., Black, pp. 88-90,'53195. 66 that a contradiction is avoided. The normative "definition of the situation“ must be general enough to produce integration among the goals, the methods, and the interacting parts. It is in this manner that a common value system is basic to the existence of systematic behavior and pervades the functions of all systems.29 Another inter-relationship between the cultural framework and the social system is found in the examination of motivation itself. To say, with Parsons, that a generalized and consistent normative system is a functional prerequisite of a system is to discuss only part of the problem. The means-end relationship may be well taken care of only if the "motivation to conform" is sufficient to main- tain the norms: the actors must accept and follow the "rules of the game."30 Acceptance and conformity with the expectations of the common culture is defined as the problem of "socialization."31 The 29As in the “paradigmatic" case of the individual, so too the paradigm of social integration. " . . . the over-all integration of the system can be obtained only by mutual orientation toward shared moral value-standards. These values perform the function for the social system that personality integrative-values perform for the personality“ (William L. Kolb, “The Changing Prominence of Values," in Modern Sociolo ical Theor , eds., Howard Becker and Alvin Boskoff [New York, |§§7I, p. IIE). 30The existence of a modal pattern of behavior is a consequence of learning as well as socialization, and " . . . the combination of value-orientation patterns which is acquired must in a very important degree be a function of the fundamental role structure and dominant values of the social system" (Parsons, The Social System, p. 227). 3‘Parsons proposes a dynamic phase cycle conceptualization of socialization analogous to psychotherapy and group learning. He is attacked on this point for assuming an exaggerated isomorphism between the personality system and the social system. See Alfred L. Baldwin, "The Parsonian Theory of Personality,“ in The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons, ed., Black, pp. 183—89. 67 institutionalization of goals and processes within the social system is the public and structural form of the motivation to conform. The internalization of the values and norms is the private and the psycho- logical form of the motivation to conform. Both aspects of systemic action have a basic tie with a shared culture despite the division of labor by which the general value system is maintained.32 This presentation of a complex relationship is not intended to slight the importance of culture in systems analysis.33 On the contrary, the relationship between the cultural system and the other systems, especially the political system, is a provocative question.34 As I shall discuss later, the development of the concept of the political system is intimately related to the question of 32Although Parsons' argument on this point is vulnerable to criticism and suffers by comparison to detailed study such as Erik H. Erikson, Childhood and Society, 2nd ed. (New York, 1963), it is by no means unsupportable. See S. M. Lipset, The First New Nation (New York, 1963), pp. 237-283. 33The use of four inter-dependent and inter-penetrating sub- systems is not based on an assumption of their equivalancy. Some critics of a Functional system concept attribute to Parsons an assumption that denies any possibility to order the different sub- systems in terms of probable causation. But Parsons has rank ordered the systemic structure of the action theory in terms of their conprehensiveness as follows: psychological systems organize organic systems; social systems organize psychological systems; cultural systems organize social systems. Parsons, "An Approach to Psychological Theory,“ in Psychology: A Study, ed., Koch, p. 6l6. See also S. M. Lipset and Leo Lowenthal, eds., Culture and Social Character (New York, l96l) and Talcott Parsons, “Some Reflections on the Place of Force in Social Process," in Internal War, ed., Harry Eckstein (New York, l964), pp. 33-70. 34Kroeber and Parsons, "The Concepts of Culture and Social System,"“American Sociological Review. The article stirred a controversy illustrative of the division of opinion surrounding the use of the concept. See the response by R. H. Ogles and Marion J. Levy, "Cultural and Social Systems: An Exchange," in American Sociolo ical Review, 24 (l959): 248-50; Talcott Parsons, TrA—Rejoinder to gles and Levy," Ibid.: 249-59. 68 "environment," especially the cultural system. For example, poli- tical scientists tend to place different emphasis on the linkage between the cultural system and the political system than does Parsons or other sociological theorists.35 Further, they tend to posit a linkage of dependence or independence between them. This understanding of the political system borrows from Parsons' general theory of action, but it is significantly different.36 An important assumption in Parsons' formulation of a general theory of action is the function of the cultural system. It becomes clear on examination that one of the important functions of the cultural system is the preservation of order or stability in the whole social system. The focus on the problem of order highlights the cultural system as one of the prime instruments for maintaining order.37 Much of the criticism of the Parsonian understanding of 35Below, chs. IV, V, and VI 36The exploration of the linkage between the political and social system, or the study of political culture, is a diverse study. The writings of Gabriel A. Almond, discussed below, chs. V and VI; H. D. Lasswell, "Agenda for the Study of Political Elites," in Political Decision-Makers, ed., Dwaine Marvick (New York, l96l). pp. 261-8I; Samuel Beer and Adam B. Ulam, Patterns of Government (Cambridge, Mass., l958); and R. C. Macridis, “Interest Groups in Comparative Analysis," The Journal of Politics, 23 (l96l): 30-50, illustrate the major approaches to the concept. 37Parsons is criticised by users of anthropological defini- tions of culture for limiting his definition while political scientists find Parsons too broad in his definition. See Clyde Kluckhohn, "Values and Value Orientations in the Theory of Action," in Toward a General Theory of Action, eds., Parsons and Shils, pp. 4l2-2l. A ood review article exploring the distinctive definitions used by po itical scientists is Young C. Kim, “The Concept of Political Culture in Comparative Politics," The Journal of Politics, 26 (l964): 3l3-36. 69 social system derives from his emphasis on the problem of maintaining order. Critics disagree with the primacy of stability in the hierarchical presentation of functional problems stated by Parsons. The basis for Parsons' conceptualization of order as a pre-eminant social problem, with the cultural system presented as the stabilizing agent, is found in the writing of Max Weber. It is not accidental that Parsons, the translator of one of Weber's works, is influenced by Weber's theorizing, as are critics of Parsons.38 The Conceptual Perspective The writings of Max Weber provide the criteria most commonly used to describe and analyze different kinds of societies. Weber's “Ideal Type" analysis suggests that patterns of authority are the central facts of social life: societies are constituted by the prevailing type of authority pattern accepted as legitimate. Weber's classic typology consists of three different kinds of authorit --"Tradi- tional, Legal, and Charismatic."39 Since Weber's typology is the basis, implicit or explicit, for most sociological definitions, it will be useful to briefly discuss the significance of his typology. A political association, and the state is only one, although the most recent form of political association, is defined “only in terms of the specific means peculiar to it . . . namely, the use Of physical f0rce.“40 The state is "a human community that flsuccessfully] 38Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism, trans., Talcott Parsons (New York, l958). 39The following summary is based on analysis of the essay by Max Weber, "Politics as a Vocation," From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, trans. and ed., H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (New York, 1958), pp. 77-79. 401bid., p. 78. claims the T. agiven terr some men don by neans of ruling and t of the "eter of the rule the legitime Weber i its differer. in reality," the problem sciencefiz Search for c tical SystEr‘ coatinationg One of attEmpts to 70 claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory."4] A political association is a situation of some men dominating other men, a relationship sanctioned and supported by means of legitimate violence. The inner justification for men ruling and being ruled is a belief in the legitimacy of the rule of the "eternal yesterday" or tradition; a belief in the legitimacy of the'rule of the "gift of grace“ or charisma; and a belief in the legitimacy of the rule of "legality" or rationalistic-legal. Weber is concerned mainly with the concept of legitimacy and its different inner justifications which are "pure types rarely found in reality." The problem of the actual types found in reality is the problem he suggests as the particular province of political SCIENCE-42 It is Weber's continued influence that motivates the search for categories of classification and comparison for poli- tical systems to reflect the complex variants, transitions, and combinations of the “ideal types" isomorphic to empirical systems. One of the more systematic elaborations of Weber's initial attempts to identify the patterns of social behavior is found in Talcott Parsons' "pattern-variable" categories.43 Parsons combines “Ibid. 42The scientific problems are discussed in a companion essay, “Science as a Vocation,“ ibid., pp. l29-56. 43The formal definition preceding their presentation says, "a pattern variable is a dichotomy, one side of which must be chosen by an actor before the meaning of a situation is determined for him, and thus before he can act with respect to that situation" (Toward a General Theory of Action, eds. , Parsons and Shils, p. 77). Typically the following page refers to pattern variables as "choices explicit or implicit" which blurs his fOrmal definition, (Ibid. ., p. 78). The gattern variable concepts are formally explicated in ibid., pp. 6 88 7l the insights of Weber with the insights of such pioneers of sociology as Toennies and Maine to create an analytical framework of analysis applicable to structural patterns of behavior. Parsons starts with the observation that social systems display alternative norms, or role expectation patterns, and structural predispositions. He then demonstrates that the simple dichotomies of Gemeinschafft and Gesellschafft are not satisfactory and proposes a more elaborate list of dichotomies.“ His search for a definitive list of dicho- tomies is by no means ended. The set of five pattern-variables identified by Parsons, regarded by some as his most important single theoretical formu- lation, are conceived as universal and basic dilemmas confronting an actor in any social situation. Each variable is said to represent a fundamental problem of orientation which the actor must resolve either one way or the other and he must resolve all five before arriving at an orientation. Parsons considers the dilemmas to be the following: l. Affectivity-Affective neutrality. The choice of either immediate grati- fication or deferred gratification in the light of long-term consideration. 2. Self-orientation-Collective orientation. The choice of either self-interest or the recognition of the claim of a super-ordinate collectivity. 44The set of five pattern variables or dichotomies of choice, presented as analytically independent of one another, generates a typology of thirty-two logically possible modal patterns of orien- tations. See Devereux, “Parsons' Sociological Theory," in Ihg_ Social Theories of Talcott Parsons, ed., Black. 72 3. Particularism-Universalism. The choice of either considering the particular relationship in which the object or person stands in relation to oneself or treating an object or person as included under some general principle without reference to oneself. 4. Ascription-Achievement. The choice of either treating an object or person by its supposed qualities or by merit and performance. 5. Diffuseness-Specificity. The choice of either responding to many aspects of a person or object or responding in a determinate way to selected aspects.45 Parsons suggested that another variable--Long-range versus Short-range evaluation--might be necessary to complete the list, but he has not yet made the addition.46 The pattern-variables provide categories to describe role- expectations and structural standards in any social system by applying this test: what is the profile characteristic of the pattern of action? Since Parsons understands the pattern-variables as theore- tically dichotomous and not continuous, the test postulates the existence of two polar types of social systems similar to the ideal- types of Gemeinschafft and Gesellschafft.47 The types of analytical 45My explanations of the pattern variable choices draw upon the formulation of Eugene J. Meehan, Contem orar Political Thou ht: A Critical Study (Homewood, ill., l967). pp. l35-37, and Max Black, 1‘Soine Questions about Parsons' Theories," in The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons, ed., Black, pp. 283-86. 46Talcott Parsons, "Some Comments on the State of the General Theory of Action," American Sociological Review, 18 (l953): 624. 47A provocative analysis of dichotomous choice models is found in Robert T. Holt and John E. Turner, Pglitical Basis of Ecogomic Develgpment: Exploration in Comparative Political Analysis (Princeton, N.Jl, 1966). pp. 7-29. L social SYSt or Traditlc is able to of orientat Parson theory to p another are function as does not di collaborati tional requ- Before lndividual 5 Some of the other Functi have in mind Wthority" b °f inteVictim F, X. S Socia] Syste. SYStEms .49 73 social systems that result are similar to either the Legal-rational or Traditional forms of legitimacy as posited by Weber. But Parsons is able to discuss other, more complicated and intermediate types of orientations and structural predispositions.48 Parsons has made a second impact on the adaptation of systems theory to political analysis by extending Weber's work in still another area in a further attempt to devise a typology of social function as well as social structure. The pattern-variable analysis does not disappear to much as reappear in different form in the collaborative efforts of Parsons and Bales to identify the “func- tional requisites" of social systems. Before discussing this next step Parsons has taken to connect individual systems and social systems, it will be useful to review some of the other significant structural typologies developed by other Functional systems theorists. The categories of typologies I have in mind for discussion are influenced by Weber's "types of authority" but mainly concentrate on the patterns and "environment" of interaction as revealed in pattern-variable categories. F. X. Sutton has developed an "Agraria-Industria" typology of social systems to compare some fundamental characteristics of social systems.49 The foundation for the typology in the "means of Production" 48Parsons has taken note of the criticism of his concepts and still finds them “absolutely essential." (Talcott Parsons, "Point of View of the Author,“ The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons, ed., Black, p. 336). In the light of this, one must assume the final formulation of the pattern variable categories occurs in "Pattern Variables Revisited," American Sociological Review: 467-83. 49F. x. Sutton, "Analyzing Social Change," in Political Development and Social Change, eds., Jason L. Finkle and Richard W. Gable (New York, l966), pp.ll09-28. allows Sut and pre'ln' agricultur. predominani (2) Stable simple and i—————-;,e,l ‘ . ‘ stratificai a developec 4 . features: ( ‘ ment noms; .....J . ‘ occ“Pationa litarian" c achievement SDElelc, ng This ac 1(itical cons Provides a b 5°Cl'al actio Weber's "tra differentiat \ 50$ . Ut variables sol 0f W‘OduCti U' O 74 allows Sutton to indicate the sociological characteristic of industrial and pre-industrial systems.50 "Agraria" is a model of an intensive agricultural society characterized by the fbllowing features: (1) A predominance of ascriptive, particularistic, diffuse patterns; (2) Stable local groups and limited spatial mobility; (3) Relatively simple and stable "occupational“ differentiations, (4) A "deferential" stratification system of diffuse impact.5] "Industria" is a model of a developed industrial society characterized by the following features: (I) Predominance of universalistic, specific, and achieve- ment norms; (2) High degree of social mobility, (3) Well-developed occupational system insulated from other social sub-systems: (4) "Ega- litarian" class system based on generalized patterns of occupational achievement; and (5) Prevalence of “associations," i.e., functionally specific, nonascriptive structures.52 This admittedly simplified model illustrates some of the socio- logical consequences of institutionalizing social change as well as provides a beginning point for a discussion of the "end-states" of social action within these types of systems.53 The typology implies Weber's "traditional" and "rational-legal" types as part of the differentiating characteristics of the end-states of action. That 50Sutton does not confine himself to use of the pattern variables but draws upon other variables as well, e.g., “modes of production" 5‘Sutton, “Analyzing Social Change,“ Political Development and Social Change, eds., Finkle and Gable, p. 24. 5216id.. pp. 25-26. 53The synthesis by Sutton of pattern variable analysis and other sociological variables has influenced research in political culture. See H. V. Wiseman, Political Systems: Some Sociological Approaches (New York, l966), pp. 55-86. iii- Sutton '5 mo the predomir "universalis Sutton' Riggs to ap; Riggs begins activity are a function. formed in or of functions. according t5 Riggs' Partially me their end-5t fused, DrlSr societieS a, “on“ Speci .. O) m (D (D n 75 Sutton's models are heavily influenced by Parsons can be seen in the predominance of "ascription" in Agraria and the predominance of “universalism” in Industria. Sutton's typology is further expanded in the work of Fred W. Riggs to apply to the analysis of a transitional or mixed society.54 Riggs begins his argument by assuming all recurring patterns of social activity are structures and the result of structural activity is a function. He then maintains that certain functions must be per- formed in order for the society to exist. The addition of the concept of functional requisites allows him to attempt to classify systems according to the degree of functional differention.55 Riggs' main interest in social change focuses his analysis on partially modernized structures, societies in the process of redefining their end-states.56 He reformulates Sutton's typology to yield a fused, prismatic, and refracted systems typology. Traditional societies are characterized as systems with a low degree of func- tional specialization.57 Functionally diffused societies in the 54The typology developed by Sutton is elaborated to include "transitia." Fred W. Riggs, "'Agraria and Industria': Toward a Typology of Comparative Administration," in Toward the Comparative Study_of Public Administration, ed., William J1 Siffen (Bloomington, Ith, 1959). 55Fred W. Riggs, Administration in DevelopingyCountries: The Theory of Prismatic Society (Boston, 1964), pp. 23-40. 56See critical comments on attempts to apply a "group" approach to developing polities in a review article, Fred W. Riggs, "The Theory of Developing Polities,” World Politics, 16 (1963): 147-61. 57Fred W. Riggs, "Bureaucrats and Political Development: A Paradoxical View," Bureaucracy and Political Development, ed., Joseph LaPalombara (Princeton, 1963), pp. 120-67. 76 extreme would have all functions performed by a single structure. This type is called a "fused " society. Modern industrial societies are characterized by a high degree of functional specialization. Functionally specialized societies in the extreme would have every function performed by a specific structure. This type is called a "refracted" system. Partically modernized systems stand at an intermediate point on this scale. There is some functional specialization in some sectors of the system but it is accompanied by "formalism“ or a discrepancy between prescription and behavior. Furthermore, there is a heterogeneity within the system in that fused and refracted systems exist side by side. Social change, as a transition from traditional to industrial society, is correlated with the appearance of functionally specific, universalistic, and achievement-oriented processes in societies while functional diffuse, particularistic, and ascriptive norms retain a deep hold on social structures. Hence, the paradoxical typology of "refracted" systems.58 The degree of structural differentialism and functional specificity rises but the level of performance of the system declines due to the persistence 'of "traditional“ pattern variables. Riggs' introduction of functional imperatives in a pattern variable analysis of structure and function requires a return to the work of Talcott Parsons for a fuller explanation.59 Pattern variable 58Riggs' concepts have undergone a change over the years and the "prismatic" polity concept appears as a "diffracted" polity concept in Fred W. Riggs, Thailand: The Modernization of a Bureau- ggatic Polity(Honolulu, 1966), pp. 376-86. 59Riggs' imaginative work has drawn mixed praise and blame. He is criticised fer wandering too far afield in search of analogies in 77 analysis of the environment of social action has its roots in psy- chology or micro-analytic theory. Functional imperative analysis has its roots in sociological theory or macro-analytic theory.60 The purpose of the addition is to establish a theoretical connection between the individual's psychological structure and function and the way in which his social system functions.61 The functional imperative approach rests on the familiar assumption that complex affairs of society could not be conducted unless there was some systematic organization. The assumption supports the hypothesis that human societies, the conmon association, must have a set of organizing principles.62 The problem remains to discover what these basic principles are and how they operate. optical theory. See a critical review article of Rig 5 by William A. Robson, "America Revisited," Political Quarterly, 34 (1963): 332-35. Riggs' latest approach is styledlfltoward'a dialectical theory“ (Fred W. Riggs, "The Theory of Political Development,“ Contem orar Political Analysis, ed., J. C. Charlesworth [New York, 1957]. PP. 3g7-49). 60Parsons indicates the nature of his "second formulation" in Parsons, Bales, and Shils, Working Papers, ch. 3, when the actor-situation nexus does not work. He develops the approach in Talcott Parsons et al., Family, Socialization, and Interaction Process (Glencoe, ITTIZ‘l955) and"TaTEottharsons and’Neil J. Smelser, Economy and Society (Glencoe, Ill., 1956). See also the critical review of the transition in Meehan, Contemporary Political Thought. pp. 146-48. 6‘Their purpose, according to Parsons and Smelser, is "to assess the effects of changes in the data of the system, the situation, and the properties of its units, on changes in the state of the system and states of its component units . . ."1 (Parsons and Smelser, Economy and Society, p. 18). 62Chandler Morse identifies four basic questions underlying the general model that Parsons seeks to answer: What are instru- mental and expressive interests? What kind of values does the action process create? What is the ultimate significance of an action process for the system? What is the perspective from which action processes are to be viewed? Chandler Morse, "The Functional Imperitives," The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons, ed., Black, pp. 103-104. The pa (above) car presentatio is initiall The first b solve the c basic type dimension. instrumenta select ends duces a mi kind of act' 78 Macrounit Analysis The paradigmatic case of the individual psychological system (above) can be usefully reviewed to clarify the basis for Parsons' presentation of the functional imperatives.63 A system of action is initially presented as involving two distinct types of activity. The first basic type of activity is "instrumental," designed to solve the cognitive dimension of the means-end network. The second basic type of activity is "expressive,“ designed to solve the cathetic dimension. At this point in his analysis a system of action requires instrumental activity to select means, and expressive activity to select ends.64 But the instance of a social system of action intro- duces a third basic type of activity--integrative activity. And this kind of activity is different from the first two kinds.55 Instrumental and expressive activity originate within the personality system of the actor; integrative activity originates in the transaction between 63Parsons has already demonstrated concern for the mechanisms whose function is to control deviance for he argues that there is a tendency toward dis-equilibrium in the internal processes; he returns to this theme by way of a discussion of the stability in the instrumental and consummatory phases of transactions. 64David E. Apter, The Politics of Modernization (Chicago, 1965) draws upon the distinction between “instrumental" and "consum- matory“ values to parallel the economic exchanges analyzed by Parsons and Smelser in Economy and Society in his "neo-mercantilist" system of modernization. 65The term "integration" refers to a wide variety of relation- ships and attitudes and is used differently depending upon the particular problem of cohesion under examination. However, Parsons seems to aggregate most existing definitions of “integration" without making the distinctions. See Myron Weiner, "Political Integration and Political Development,“ The Study of New Nations, ed., Karl Von Vorys (Philadelphia, 1965), pp. 52-64. two or ”1 a specia‘ The iilustrai at least vational roles and system can habits prc of social PEnetratin found not within the Parsor means of tr structures \ 6 6Karl magrati on Bougdaries l ” egrati 79 two or more actors. It is a special kind of end that requires a special kind of means.66 The basic concept of a system of social action based on this illustration has three components. (1) The personality systems of at least two actors each containing "need dispositions" and "moti- vational committments.” (2) A social system consisting of defined roles and their institutional role-expectations. (3) The cultural system consisting of the heritage of ideas, values, knowledge, and habits produced by earlier transactions of the system.67 A system of social action requires the mutual existence of these inter- penetrating sub-systems; the cultural system is the binding element found not only as a separate analytical system but also embodied within the personality system and the social system.68 Parsons' transition from the analysis of micro-structures by means of the pattern-variable analysis to the analysis of macro- structures by means of the functional imperatives is made with 66Karl W. Deutsch has modified the Parsonian conception of integration by suggesting the transaction flows across sub-system boundaries be used as a measure of integration. See Karl W. Deutsch, "Integration and the Social System: Implication of Functional Analysis," in The Integration of Political Communities, eds., Philip E. Jacob and James V. Toscano (Philadélphia, 1964). P. 147. 67Morse, "The Functional Imperitives," The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons, ed., Black, pp. 105-110. 68Personality theory is a sideline in the context of the theory of action since Parsons asserts, "The essence of a system of action, then, is that it consists of motivational or need-disposition units . . . bound together by serving the same value patterns .'. . . These value systems are strategically the most important properties of internalized social objects" (Parsons g§_gl,, Family, Sociali- zationyyand Interaction, p. 167). His position would be a special variant of what Fred I. Greenstein calls the "actor dispensibility" proposition. See Fred 1. Greenstein, "The Impact of Personality on Politics: An Attempt to Clear Away Underbrush," American Political Science Review, 56 (1967): 635. 80 characteristic disregard for operational detail. He has attempted to provide a structural-functional analysis capable of explaining human behavior as found in the individual, the small group, the organization, and the society. But the relation of these varieties of structures to an essentially uniform process of action is not clearly demonstrated.69 The basic formulation for the model from which the functional imperatives is derived reads: . process in any social system is subject to four independent functional imperatives or 'problems' which must be met adequately if equilibrium and/or continuing existence of the system is to be maintained.7 The four functional problems are: G -- Goal Attainment A --- Adaptation 1 -- Integration L -- Latency The Goal Attainment function is the task of keeping the action system moving toward the attainment of its goals. The Adaptation function is the task of mobilizing the technical means necessary for goal attainment and latency. It is sometimes presented by Parsons as The problem and at the heart of what he means by "rationality." The 69The methodological problems of establishing isomorphism are great in any comparison, especially when Parsons includes so many different entities within the scope of his theory. Further- more, Parsons assumes orientation can be unconscious. Robert Merton argues reference is to be made to standardized or patterned items and the consequence of patterned actions, not deliberate or even additional orientation. See Robert Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure, rev. ed. , (New York, 1957), ch. 1. 70Parsons and Smelser, Economy and Society, p. 16. 81 Integration function is the problem of achieving and maintaining stable emotional and social relations; it is the problem of establishing and maintaining cooperation among the social units. The Latency, or Pattern Maintenance and Tension Management, function is the task of providing an interlude between cycles of the action process.71 The functional problems fit together in a not unexpected manner to one familiar with the pattern variable mode of analysis. The G and A problems taken together constitute the "task orientation" area of "instrumental activity." And I and L problems taken together constitute the “social emotional area" of “expressive activity." They are not truly distinct though in that they merge into two component aspects of the action process; "task-performance" and "system-maintenance." Parsons still must account for the awkward category of integrative action.72 The unifying thread in Parsons' development of structural- functional theory is an implicit hypothesis. The analysis of psychological systems reveals that interaction is between individual role incumbents viewed in terms of role specialization and role differentiation. The analysis of social systems retains this assumption. Social interaction occurs between specialized occupational sub-systems increasingly differentiated from other specialized role sub-systems. 7‘The relational properties of the functional requisites are presented schematically in a hierarchically structured diagram in which the Latency function is primary. See Parsons, "Pattern Variables Revisited," American Sociological Review: 476. 72“Given the expectation pattern of one member unit, there is no guarantee that the relations to other units on which the fulfill- ment of the expectation depends will 'stay put.‘ There will, there- fore, be a necessity for processes of adjustment either by positively controlling the relevant unit or by accommodation of it." (Parsons, Bales, and Shils, Working Papers, p. 211). There is a suggestion 82 Parsons implicitly assumes that as societies become more complex they produce groups of inter-dependent roles that are specialized in the performance of one of the functional imperatives for society.73 Every complex social system then is characterized by a division of labor with distinct sub-systems functionally specialized to accomplish one of the functional imperatives. The differentiation and specialization of a complex society results in the following structural division of functional labor: G --- The Polity A --- The Economy I --- The Integrative sub-system L --- The Pattern-maintenangg and Tension- management sub-system A major contention in Parsons' use of functional imperatives is the principle that large, complex social systems regulate themselves by following several distinct kinds of "rationality" to resolve several distinct kinds of social problems.75 The sub-systems are that the action cycle culminates in no action, or Latency, as the necessary condition for Integration, and ultimately, for Goal- attainment. See Meehan, Contemporary Political Thought. PP. 156-57. 73There is an interesting parallel between Parsons and the conceptualization of the hierarchy of need-dispositions by Abraham H. Maslow. Maslow argues for a hierarchy beginning with "physical needs" (cfi. "adaptation") and culminating in "Self-actualization" (cf. "1atency"). See Abraham H. Maslow, Motivation and Personality (New York, 1954), pp. 370-96; James C. Davies, Human Nature in Politics (New York, 1963). 74See Parsons' explanation and differentiation in Parsons and Smelser, Eggngmy and Sgciety. PP. 460-60. 75In Parsons' early writings, his criticisms of social theories are based on the desire to replace "rationality“ by deterministic or instinctual postulates. A major theme in all of his writing is to formulate a theory of general action based on rational problem- solving procedures. The major part of his energy is directed to 83 "rational" to the extent they employ commonly accepted problem- solving procedures in the appropriate contexts. The principle appears first in the pattern variable analysis where a number of mutually independent dimensions of action are listed according to which means, ends, and conditions can be evaluated. The four func- tional problems represent four distinct social "ends," and four different kinds of rationality, whose simultaneous application is responsible for the functioning of the system. The collection of choices made among the pattern-variables produces the concrete evaluations within the social system which in turn produce the plurality of concrete ends for the social system in the solution of the four functional imperatives.76 One of the more careful commentators of Parsons' functional imperatives analysis concludes his essay by suggesting that it is permissible to doubt that Parsons has done what he thinks he has done]7 There is no sound reason for assuming that Parsons has in fact discovered the.functional problems for any social system. Nor is there need to accept Parsons' contention that the performance of formulate a social calculas equivilent to the "rationality criteria" developed in economics. See Parsons, The Structure of Social Action, pp. 698-99 and Parsons and Smelser, Economy and Society, Pp. 68-79. 76The theme of coordination implicit in Parsons' work is almost acknowledged and the coordinator identified in a later essay where he suggests there are qualitative differences amont the levels of hierarchial organization due to the influence of some organiza- tions on the determination of categories of input and output. See Talcott Parsons, "General Theory in Sociology,“ in Robert Merton §%_a1., Sociolggy Today: Problems and Prospects (New York, 1959), c . . 77Morse, "The Functional Imperatives," in The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons, ed., Black, pp. 150. 84 these tasks is necessary for the system to survive. There is a need, however, to consider the fundamental questions raised by Parsons, regardless of the evaluation of his answers. The hypothesis that there may be an identifiable set of functional requisites holds fOrth the promise of introducing more rigor than presently exists in systemic analysis. The special characteristic of a Parsonian functional system is its analytic character.78 Any attempt to directly derive conceptual models of particular functional sub-systems to use in empirical research in actual social processes does violence to the theoretical unity of the system.79 For example, the characteristics of the 78There is an interesting debate about the logical and metho- dological status of Functionalist theory in which the theoretical claims are discussed. Parsons and Ackerman call it a "useful tool" to emphasize “connectedness among ordered aggregates" embedded in and interacting with a fluctuating environment and the mechanisms maintaining it. "What more can be asked of a 'cognative' map but that it direct attention . . . to relevant questions and the loci of relevant problems while supplying a conceptual framework. (Carl Ackerman and Talcott Parsons, "The Concept of 'Social System' as a Theoretic Device," Concepts, Theory, and Explanation in the Behavioral Sciences, ed., 61 J. DiRenzo [NewlYork, 1966], pp. 25-29; p. 39). Any theoretical claim made on behalf of functionalists theory is disputed for it is classified as a heurestic device with vague cognative use by A. James Gregor, "Political Science and the Uses of Functional Analysis,“ American Political Science Review, 62 (1968): 338- 39. Richard Rudner, however, disputes Parsons' self-categorization (and he would certainly deny Gregor's state- ment): "One should not conclude . . .that Parsons' Theory of Action' is a nontheoretical formulation--despite his [Parsons'] apparent endorsement of such a conclusion, there is independent evidence that Parsons is simply wrong here about the nature of his own work" (Richard Rudner, The Philos_phy of Social Science [Englewood Cliffs, N. J. , 1966], pp. 67:81). 79One of the outstanding illustrations of the usefulness of Parsons' work-~when it is supplemented and supported by other propositions--and evidence for the polity as the goal-attainment sector of social action is found in William C. Mitchell, Ihg. American Polity, (New York, 1963), pp. 67-81. 85 political system postulated by Parsons are not to be understood as empirical properties of actual political processes. The poli- tical system in Parsons' formulation of social system is only one of the constituent parts of a larger system, the social system.80 Thus, the contribution made by Parsons' formulation of a functional system is strictly analytical. His formulation of the political system cannot be understood as a source for testible hypotheses for research proposals. While Parsons contends that the function of the political system is goal attainment, it does so in context of an analytical under- standing of a larger system, the whole social system. The goal attainment function is instrumental to the overall functioning of a comprehensive system. The comprehensive level of systems analysis raises the question of the function of the whole social system of which the political system is a subordinate part. The answer to the question reveals the implicit qualification whose explicit recog- nition is necessary: the major function of the whole system is equilibrium.81 The larger systemic function of the political system 80Mitchell continues to demonstrate that Parsonian concepts are useful modes of political analyses but he is still forced to incorporate other concepts and provide additional qualifications in order to accomodate his data. See William C. Mitchell, Sociological Analysis and Politics: The Theories of Talcott Parsons (Englewood' fiiffs’ N030, 1967), p- 59. 8‘The reference is to international equilibrium and requires stability in the relational prOperties of sub-systems. It does not preclude overall system change so long as the essential patterns of interaction are maintained. Parsons has argued that equilibrium is not "static" and that it promotes development. See Talcott Parsons, “Evolutionary Universals in Society," American Sociological Review, 29 (1964): 339-57. 86 is to assist in the maintenance of the whole system itself. Only when the political system achieves its function does society persevere. Hence, the ultimate function to which all component as well as sub-systems contribute is total system equilibrium. Summary The major criticism made of the Functional systems approach is an alleged "static" bias.82 For example, one critic remarks on the misleading aspect of the very name, a "general theory of action": "In the world of Talcott Parsons, actors are constantly orienting themselves to situations and very rarely, if ever, acting."83 Another criticism of the Functional systems approach drawing upon the same analysis goes even further and identifies a “conservative" bias in this approach.84 To move from a criticism of an assumption of stability to a political criticism of the Functional system, however, is an unwar- rented move. The assumption of the importance of stability is a tenant of cardinal importance for Parsons and a scientific criticism of the theory must ultimately come to terms with the assumption. But, it is misleading to confuse an assumption with an ideology and proceed on that basis to criticise the normative implications of a Functional system concept. 82Lewis A. Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict (New York, 1956). Pp. 20-23. * 83"There is no action in the theory of action" (William F. Whyte, Man and Organization (Homewood, Ill., 1959], p. 40). 84This criticism is best associated with.C. Wright Mills, who is not the most "objective” critic of functional theory, although its most irate. C. Wright Mills, The Socioldgical Imagination (New York, 1961). pp. 25-49. 87 It is possible to construct the outlines of the ideological underpinnings of the political theory of Talcott Parsons by using the isolated political (rather than sociological) analyses he has made over the years.85 The exchanges between Parsons and C. W. Mills serve to illuminate the political ideology that Parsons "derives“ from his sociological work.86 But there is an important distinction between Parsons' political attitudes and Parsons' scientific theorizing, a distinction crucial for the development of scientific theory.87 Parsons, his critics, and his defenders agree that the problem of order or stability is a primary focus of the functional systems approach. As Parsons states: "It is quite true that the empirical- theoretical problem which was at the focus of my own theoretical 'take-off' was the problem of the bases of social order."88 He is 85The two most significant essays are the famous “McCarthy article" by Talcott Parsons, "Social Strains in America," and "Social Strains in America: A Postscript," in The Radical Ri ht, ed., Daniel Bell (New York, 1964) pp. 209-29, 23l-38; and "'aoting' and the Equilibrium of the American Political System,“ in American Votin Behavior, eds., Eugene Burdick and Arthur Brodbeck (Glencoe, Ill., 1959), pp. 81-120. 86In addition to Mills, The Sociological Imagination, Parsons' contribution to the debate is found inihis review of Mills, The Power Elite (New York, 1956). Talcott Parsons, “The Distribfition of Power in American Society," World Politics, 10 (1957): 125-44. 87Parsons calls himself a "typical American 'egghead' intellectual" and places his position on the American political perspective “well to the left." (Parsons, "Point of View,“ in The Social Theories of ‘Talcott Parsons, ed., Black, p. 350). There is still a gap between his politics and the political perspective of those in the Marxist tradition. But Andrew Hacker, who is more sympathetic to Mills than to Parsons, takes pains to point out the difference a political position and a scientific theory. See Andrew Hacker, "Sociology and Ideilogy," in The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons, ed., Black, pp. 289-310. ' 33Parsons, "Point of View," i id., p. 336. 88 led to assume that general social conflict is disruptive, hence, dysfunctional. The sociological problem the explanation of which the functionalist system presents is the desiderata for integration and continued existence. The substantial criticism of the functional system approach that it is "static" is a fundamental criticism for it exposes what is perhaps the most important single assumption to criticism. An assumption ultimately necessary for the development of the functional system approach is the claim that social systems can be conceived of in terms of a general consensus of values internalized by individual actors and institutionalized in structures. The higher level assumption conceives of social structures as forms of organizations held together in a functionally integrated system that maintains an equilibrium by certain recurrent patterns. The functiona- list theory of the social system, in the light of its fundamental assumptions, is an "integration theory of society."89 One of the basic tenants contained within the notion of equili- brium is a generalized assumption about stability. Whatever objections are made to the assumption itself, it is a necessary and sufficient assumption for the construction of a functional system. Furthermore, the assumption is not presented as an absolute statement. The use of the concept of stability or equilibrium analysis in a systems theory does not necessarily mean the analysis is "static." Stability of equilibrium is most certainly a tenant of func- tionalist approach to social action. But it does not thereby mean 89The most consistent criticism of an "integrationistttheory" is fbund in Ralf Dahrendorf, Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (Stanford, 1959), pp. 1|2, ll9-24, I31, 159. 89 that a functionalist systems approach cannot in principle or does not in practice concern itself with social change. It means the function of processes that do occur is to maintain the patterns of the system as a whole.90 The wide acceptance and informative application of the approach are sufficient evidence that many problems of social action are comprehended within its framework of analysis. It is possible to construct a coherent view of social action, supported by empirical data, by using a functionalist approach. Perhaps there are some social processes and problems not comprehended by the approach. But such an observation is an observation about the parameters of the conceptualization and not a comment about the evaluative bias of the concept. The criticisms of the basic assumptions of the functional systems approach that merit serious attention are not so much the “static bias" of the approach but, rather, the focus on stability itself. David Lockwood has made the perceptive comment: . Parsons' array of concepts is heavily weighted by assumptions and categories which relate to the role of normative elements in social action, and especially to the processes whereby motives are structured normatively to ensure social stability. On the other hand, what may be called the substratum of social action, expecially as it conditions interests which are productive of social conflict and instability, tends to be ignored as a general determinant of the dynamics of social systems.91 906. E. Swanson, "The Approach to a General Theory of Action gyngzsons and Shils," American Sociological Review, 18 (1953): 9‘David Lockwood, "Some Remarks on 'The Social System', " British Journal of Sociology, 3 (1956): 134-46. 90 The important attack and revision of the functionalist system is based upon a consistent denial of the assumption of stability and a consistent use of an assumption of conflict as a replacement. The alternative, that is, is to construct a "conflict theory of society" with the foci of analysis placed on instability rather than stability, conflict rather than integration, disequilibrium rather than equilibrium. This alternative when it is raised against the functional systems approach presents one of the most puzzling problems on the most general level of sociological and political theory: how do societies cohere? As yet, there is no generalized theoretical answer. But surely the conceptualization and formali- zation of a functionalist system approach marks a landmark in progress toward that goal. CHAPTER IV AN ANALOGUE SYSTEM Metaphor and Methodology To reorient comparative politica1 analysis around the concept of an analogue system requires both the adaptation of sociological concepts and the formulation of new concepts necessary for political analysis. The basis for the concept of political system poses no problem: genera1 systems theory provides an acceptable source for concepts such as system, structure, and function. The problem, however, is to supplement the categories of analysis with new concepts of another order of generality. System, structure, and function need to be qualified by "political" and compared and contrasted with concrete activities.1 The methodology of an analogue systems approach is to establish formal identities between various systems through the use of meta- phors and analogies. Ernst Haas has characterized this tendency in contemporary political science as inquiry governed by a "dominant 1A. Rapoport argues political science is a science of organi- zation that will advance only when genera1 organization theory advances. A. Rapoport, "Some System Approaches to Political Theory," in Varieties of Politic l Theor , ed., David Easton (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1966), Efififlfifliiffi?""—’JL . . . 91 92 metaphor."2 David Easton introduces the method to political scientists thusly: . . . Systems have made their appearance as a possible focus, beginning with the smallest cell in the human body as a system and working up through ever more inclusive systems such as the human being as an organism, the human personality, small groups, broader institutions, societies, and collections 05 societies, such as the international system. The cognitive use of analogies to gain an understanding of an - unknown domain is a long-standing tradition in the natural sciences. Analogies serve to explicitly direct attention to resemblances between a known entity and a real but unknown subject-matter.4 Thus, a scientist can recognize and systematize similarities previously unknown by stating the properties of an analogous body. For example, it is possible to discover that electricity has a "flow" or "current" exerting "pressure" of a certain "volume" by stating the principles of hydrodynamics. Such a systematic elaboration of the resemblances between unlike bodies constitutes an analogy. In some cases the grounds for resemblance are few and apparent only when both objects are compared to yet another object. Thus, Newton could begin to state a theory by observing the similarity of the motion of the moon in orbit to the fall of the apple to earth; but the only similarity is the fact that both are masses attracted to the earth in accord with the law of gravity--there the similarity ends, and there is no analogy. 2Ernst Haas, Beyond the Nation-State: Functionalism and Inter- national Organization (Stanford, 1964), p. 5. 3David Easton, A Framework for Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1965), pp. 15-17. 4Abraham Kaplan, The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science (San Francisco, 1964), pp. 265-66. 93 Analogies are in use in social science despite the problems encountered in systematizing resemblances between physical and social entities. A more relevant illustration of an analogy is found in the use of the hydrodynamic analogy in psychology: the Id is likened to a "resovoir" having several “outlets" which can lower internal “pressures," which in turn are raised by forces of repression.5 Psychologists have extended their concepts to construct a societal analogy to discuss "censors," "authoritarian super ego," "internal conflicts," and so forth. Similarly, the field of public administration has made use of many different analogies, ranging from organisms to armies to systems as such, to serve their purposes.6 Analogies are used to lead to theories; they are, “an utterly essential part of theories, without which theories would be completely valueless and unworthy of the name."7 Nonetheless, the use of analogies, especially organic analogies, in the behavioral sciences has not occured without substantial criticism.8 The problem inherent in the use of analogies as cognitive devices is the inability of the user to make explicit all of the associations of the analogy. 5The great use of analogy in psychology springs in part from the writings of William James, Principles of Psychology (New York, 1950). pp. 317-73. 6Dwight Waldo, Perspectives on Administration (Birmingham, Ala., 1956). pp. 26-49) 7Norman Campbell, "What is Science,“ in Readings in the Philosophy of Science, eds., H. Feigl and M. Broadbeck (New York, T9537, p0 297 o 8Some of the more significant criticisms are found in Carl G. Hemple, Aspects of Scientific Explanation (New York, 1965), pp. 433-47; E. A. Nagel, The Structure of Science (New York, 1961), pp. 107-17; idem, Logic Without Metaphysics (New York, 1957), pp. 247-83. 94 Sometimes the analogy is found unsatisfactory because some impli- cations were not explored. It is necessary to argue that analogue systems are not immune to the danger of misleading the investigator.9 Social scientists working with systems concepts to analyze politica1 data concentrate on developing substantive or symbolic analogies to serve as preliminary elements in theory building.10 Reference is made to "natural systems" such as an organism or servo-mechanical systems in order to construct a graphic represen- tation of political and social behavior.]] Analogue systems are intended to provide heurestic guidance in the initial search for adequate explanation. Effort is then made to specify the kind and degree of analogy between the analogue and the empirical process, if a resemblance can be established. A ”suitable" definition of politics, the relevant set of interactions, and a tentative identification of the structures and functions of the political system are the main barriers to overcome in order to develop an analogue system. After this step, empirical observations can provide the structural data and identify the modes of action characteristic of political processes. Thus, the 9Mary Hesse, "The Explanatory Function of Metaphor," in Logic, Methodology and Philosophyyof Science, ed., Yehoshua Bar-Hillel (Amsterdam,—l965), pp. 249-59. 1QMax Black, Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy (Ithaca, N.Y., 1962), pp. 219-43. He suggests two Other types of models, iconic or scale models and analogue or formal models. nEaston insists his definition of system is analytic or formal with the emphasis on the basic interaction process by which the political system regardless of its generic type, is able to persist. "The only question of importance about a set selected as a system to be analyzed is whether this set constitutes an interesting system." (David Easton, "Categories For the Systems Analysis of Politics," Varieties of Political Theory, ed., David Easton [Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,—l966], p. 147). ”mm 95 problem of constructing an analogue systems approach to politics is essentially deductive and empirical. Given the acceptance of the general categories of systems theory, how can they be applied to a particular aspect of society? Conceptual Foundations David Easton pioneered a mode of analysis incorporating a structural-functional approach to politics.12 Indeed, Easton has done for political science what Parsons has done for sociology. Beginning with the idea that politics is an inter-related activity, Easton encompassed the political aspects of social life within his "input-conversion-output" categories. By applying these terms he is able to analytically separate a functional segment of activity while avoiding a restrictive concern with structure. His hope is that by viewing each aspect of the political processseparately he would be able to understand the parts; later, the parts could be analytically assembled in such a fashion as to reveal the whole structure of the political system within which the processes occur.13 The significance of the concept of function in an analogue system suggests a similarity with a Parsonian system although the approaches were independently constructed. In fact, Parsons has endorsed the analogue approach as compatible with his categories leaston's first major work remains a primary source for his later conceptualizations. David Easton, The Political System (New York, 1953). 13David Easton, "An Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems,“ World Politics, 9 (1957): 384. 96 of social analysis, despite the conceptual differences, and sug- gested this approach as a fruitful empirical procedure.l4 Easton too has profited from Parsons' work in structural-functional analysis.15 But the concept of function stressed by Easton is essentially different from Parsons' concept of function.16 For Parsons, a postulated function is the central characteristic of a system, the analytical referent by which it is defined. Easton applied the notion of function to all processes of social action indiscrimi- nately. But in Parsons' formulation of structural-functional analysis a particular function is ascribed to all structures, especially to all sub-systems. For example, the political system in Parsons' schema is assigned the function of goal-attainment. He means by this that the sub-system of the whole society that is identified as the political system is that which is functionally specialized in the activity of goal-attainment. That is, Parsons begins by asking functional questions of 3333 and yflggg and then identifies a-segment of social action as the goal-attainment sector or the political system. However, there is no postulated function for systems and sub-systems in analogue systems such as Easton's. The function is *— 14Talcott Parsons, "Some Highlights of the General Theory of Action," _pproaches to the Studyyof Politics, ed., Roland Young (Evanston, Ill., 1959), p. 301. 15Easton acknowledges his debt to Parsons for the concept of "support" although "the extent to which he [Parsons] uses other aspects of system theory is not clear to me" (Easton, "An Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems," World Politics: 390, fn. 3. 16Peter Nettl, "The Concept of Function in Political Science," Political Studies, 14 (1966): 316-18. 97 identified by its abstraction from the system's actual processes. The function is observed by observing the processional characteristics of the segment of social activity.]7 The identification of function begins with the description of an actual process which is used as a basis for its classification in functional categories. By Comparison, formal structural-functional analysis begins with the postulation of a function, the postulate is transcribed into suitable operational terms and then quantified. The important distinction is that analogue systems are theoretically autonomous rather than systematically inter-related to their environment. Organic integration of systems is conceptually impossible. All systems exist in a field or environ- ment with which they are reciprocally connected by feedback processes but the environment itself cannot be understood in systems categories.18 Each system exists in analytical isolation as an autonomous mechanism functioning in its own unique environment. Thus an analogue system tends to be a "unique" system rather than an integral part of a comprehensive whole system. An immediate problem which Easton encountered is the question of the boundaries of the political system. Not despite the fact of separateness, but because the political system is self-contained, l7Easton, The Political system, contains a definition of politics in ch. 5 and a definition of system in ch. 9 which Easton continues to acknowledge as valid. What distinguishes the system encompassing all forms of political interaction from "all other kinds of social interactions is that they are predominately oriented toward the authoritative allocation of values for society" (Easton, A Framework for Political Analysis, ch. 4). 18Although the graphic representations of the linkages between system and environment are much more complex in Easton's later work, it remains essentially unmapped ground. See his diagram in Davgd Easton, A Systems Analysis of Political Life (New York, 1965), p. 0. 98 it is crucial to be able to distinguish the political system, consti- tuted by political acts, from the social setting, constituted by all other kinds of acts.19 It is an open question whether Easton provides a systematic procedure by which the separation can be made, although his attempt raises many questions whose answers might suffice to identify a boundary.20 The Function of Analogy Despite Easton's assertions to the contrary, he has so defined the political system as to apparently locate elements of the political system outside the system itself. The diffuse notion of system environment complicates the Input-Output schema when the emphasis of analysis selected by Easton requires some focus on the procedural dimensions internal to the political system. The case of “supports" for the system is a less serious case in point. "Supports" come from the system environment as part of the Input but are conceptually separate from "demands" which also come from the environment as Inputs. Supports function as supports. Although that is a tautology, it is not a meaningless tautology. The problems of maintenance and integration of the political system 19The authoritative allocations of value is only partially successful as a criterion by which to identify political inter- actions since similarly authoritative decisions could be made elsewhere-- the church, for example. The subject matter that is the concern of political scientists is the societal political system rather than "parapolitical" or “subsystems." 20A broad-ranging discussion of the metaphorical problems of the boundary problem is Paul Kress, ”Self, System, and Significance," Ethics, 77 (1966): 1-13. 99 are the larger functional problems towards whose resolution ”supports" contribute.2] But the support component of the system may be both an external and internal element. A more serious problem in the conceptualization can be illus- trated by following the implications of the lack of clarity in the approach. What exactly constitutes the political system?22 Consider the problems encountered in attempting to establish the location of the administrative units of the political system. For example, in order to define the location of a formal and independent bureau- cratic structure and assess its contribution to the operation of a political system is an Operation that requires some juggling of the concepts. To the extent bureaucratic structures existing in a society meet the Weberian definition of neutral administrators of political decisions, they are an important component of any modern political system. As such they are located within the boundaries of the political system. But to the extent the bureaucratic structures existing in a society depart from this form, and are independent of the leadership of the political elite and follow an independent course of action, they are no longer simply components of the poli- tica1 system. The bureaucracy in most developing nations exercises some political power independently of the other sources of power at the same time it serves to implement political decisions. 21A useful discussion of "supports" is found in Easton, A_ Systems Analysis of Political Life, Part III. 22Kress, "Self, System, and Significance," Ethics: 12, argues that Easton has an "empty vision of politics.“ 100 A bureaucracy that imposes its desires on the society while at the same time implementing authoritative decisions is both outside and inside the political system. As it makes demands and imposes policy it is by definition outside the boundaries of the political system. As it serves to process demands and aid in their conversion and implementation it is by definition idside the boundaries of the political system. The example is treated by Easton as an instance of "withinputs."23 The concept, however, appears suspiciously like an ag_hgg_revision of the framework and it is hardly a satis- factory solution. He does not acknowledge the larger problem in the analogue system that compels him to make such a reformulation. The use of a systems concept logically requires a concept of boundary. And without an exact concept of boundary the systems concepts as formulated in Eastonian terms would be operationally weakened. The procedural or conversion emphasis selected by Easton for use in political analysis requires a precise operational stan- dard to identify the beginning point for the conversion process and the end point where process become policy. Easton has recognized this problem and made various attempts to sharpen the concept of system environment.24 The question of the interdependence of political and social action is certainly related to the inputs-outputs of the system. The political system is important because the consequences of its 23Easton, A Framework for Political Analysis, ch. 7. 24It is interesting to compare Easton's "very primitive 'model'" of the political system in "An Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems," World Politics: 384, and its successor in A Systems Analysis of Political Life. pp.4193-203, 289-319. 101 action are important for society. The inputs which it processes are demands made by society which cannot be solved without special, organized effort. As with Parsons, Easton considers social action goal-motivated; competing claims for scarce but valuable resources must be mediated if the system is to continue. A formal charac- teristic of a political system, Easton claims, is its designation as the mechanism by which conflicts over those objects considered valuable by the normative standards of the culture are authoritatively settled. The political system, including the government and its institutions, is distinct because its actions, as outputs, are unique: they are the "authoritative allocations of value(s)." This means that political action is important because it concerns those values, which, since they are defined and evaluated by the culture, constitute the binding element of the social system itself. Part of this difficulty is found in the attempt to ggjjgg. a political system while at the same time trying to provide a cri- teria to distinguish a political system from its social setting. Easton sought both a definition of politics and empirical evidence of the operation of this functional process within a social setting. The political system, he says, is made up of all political acts. Political actions ultimately, as outputs, are "authoritative allo- cations of values.“ But, how is he to separate and discuss the poli- tical system in his terms when the substance of the demands are themselves conflicts over values? The process of political action and the product of politics are different aspects of a single phenomenon. 102 Another way of discussing Easton's "inputs" is in Parsons' concept of "orientation."25 Cognition and cathexis, or information and affect, correspond to Easton's definition of input, "the infor- mation and energy" which activate the process.26 The significant fact for Parsons is that affect is critical for action: it is both the impetus and the goal. The general pattern of affect characteristic of a total social system is its "culture." Easton apparently accepts this formulation and therein lies the root of his problem, for he fails to be consistant.27 Easton and Parsons would agree the total social system is maintained to the extent that a common orientation, a common accep- tance of certain patterns of values, exists. Easton begins by characterizing the political system as the mechanism existing to mediate conflicts over values, and ends by saying that the political system exists to "authoritatively allocate" values. The political system, with this definition of politics, would become either identical to the distinguishing aspect of “culture,“ hence with the Etotal system," or separated from and controlling society. He is in theoretical difficulty on either count. It would be impossible to establish a meaningful boundary between the political system and its social setting in the first case. The maintenance of the culture would be the functional specialization of the political 25Above, on. III, pp. 58-69. 26Easton, "An Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems," World Politics: 386. 27Meehan comes to substantially the same conclusion, although he reaches it by a different route, in his analysis of Easton's work. See Eugene J. Meehan, Contemporary_Political Thought: A Critical Study (Homewood, Ill., 1967), pp. 172-75. 103 system. The political system would then be identical with the whole social system. A boundary could be established in the second case but only at the expense of violating the notion of "system“: "the political system" would not be inter-dependent but independent and superior. In either case the political function of authoritatively allo- cating values would be the superior function in society by his formulation. The values derived from the culture-~indeed, they are the culture-~are taken as given by Easton and he does not consider the question of their origin and composition as relevant for a systemic analysis of the political system. Only the inevitable conflict of values is important in order to understand the condi- tion of activity. The consequence of political activity is the resolution of value conflict.28 But does the social sub-system whose function is to "authori- tatively" decide conflicts remain a subsidiary part of a whole already defined as being created by an earlier allocation of values? A sub-system functioning to minimize the effects of value conflict would be fulfilling the function of maintenance, or goal-attainment, or integration; a mechanism operating to decide between values would eventually achieve maintenance, or goal-attainment, or integration if it were "authoritative" enough. Would it not be better to call the functions of this kind of sub-system something else? 28"The reason why a political system emerges in a society at all . . ; is that demands are being made by persons or groups in the society that cannot all be fully satisfied. In all societies one fact dominates political life: scarcity. . .” (Easton, 33;)Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems," World Politics: 104 The notion of the kind of social system that would exist as the outputs of the political system become the core of the culture is a system in ”equilibrium.“ Easton defines the term in this way: In every system the component variables will interact in such a way that if the interaction is allowed to continue without further distur- bance, ultimately a state will be achieved in which no variable changes its position or relation with respect to the other variables. In this sense only is it meaningful to say that variables are in equilibrium, that they have reached a steady or homeo-static state, or that they enjoy a cgndition of harmony, stability, or balance. 9 Easton outlines his concept of the political system by the statement that all social systems seek some form of equilibrium; hence, the political system comes into being to assist the attainment of certain goals, one of them being stability.30 It serves society by resolving the conflicts over values which produce instability and assisting society to achieve other goals. If it serves society well and functions as it was intended it produces equilibrium, the state in which no variable changes its position. Politics, the resolution ngavid Easton, "Equilibrium and the Social System," Political Behavior, eds., Heinz Eulau gt al., (Glencoe, Ill., l956), pp. 397-404. 301t is difficult to reconcile the different positions held by Easton on the utility of the equilibrium concept. In an earlier statement he says, "Since all systems are determinate, they must show the property of striving to achieve equilibrium . . . ." But surely he does not mean to introduce the second law of thermodynamics into systems analysis. He presentstheequilibrium concept as one rewarding way of studying social behavior and his conceptualization of the political system as designed to operationalize the concept. (David Easton, "Limits of the Equilibrium Model in Political Science," Behavioral Science, I [l956]: 96-l04). ’ l05 of conflict, seems to make itself obsolete when it succeeds. The political system in a truly stable society functions to guarantee that the existing allocation remains authoritative.31 A major problem in the analogue systems approach constructed by Easton resides in the implications of the analogy itself. Easton prefers to use organic analogies as heurestic guides even while recognizing an element of "disanalogy."32 Chalmers Johnson criticises analogical systems theory by attacking the "misplaced organic analogies" that lead political scientists to conceive of social and political systems in terms of life cycles.33 One of the consequences of such approaches is the presumption that political systems are entities incapable of autonomously reorganizing their structures and processes. A further consequence of such a presumption is an emphasis on sta- bility and preservation as functions of the political system. The limitations of the analogue model to conceptualize rapid, revolutionary change derive from the use of the analogy itself. The emphasis on process and conversion found in Easton's analogue model tends to underestimate the possibility of autonomous poli- tical action even while injecting the implication that the political system is unique and controlling. The occurance of revolutionary 31Easton has recently reconsidered his use of the equilibrium model. "Such a conception would offer a less useful theoretical approximation of reality than one that takes into account other possibilities.“ He continues to shift his emphasis so far toward “dynamic equilibrium" that his focus is on continuing dis- -equilibrium. (Easton, "Categories for the Systems Analysis of Politics," Varieties of Political Theory, ed., Easton, p. l45). 32Easton, A Framework for Political Analysis, p. 25. 33Chalmers Johnson, Revolutionary Change, (Boston, l966), p. 49. l06 social change created and directed by members of the political system is one important implication difficult to reconcile within the conceptualization. The problem can be illustrated by an evaluation made by Tang Tsou of the political analyses made of the Chinese Communist Party prior to their success. Tsou argues the "kernel of truth" in the analyses stressing the neutral and mechanical characteristics of “'5'1 Chinese political organizations obscured another "kernel of truth": PW...“ s. A. I - mt”- . . . What these analyses failed to take adequately into account was a new political factor: the ability of a totalitarian party, using all the levers of social control, to manipulate mass attitudes, to organize social life, and to tap surplus labor as a source of capital for the paramount purpose . . . of rapid industrialization. It is a new dimension which American specialists and officials, . . . naturally failed to gauge. The trend of the social sciences up to that time, which emphasized the determining effects of social forces on political actions, also left them unprepared to appraise correctly a situation in which the political actors deliberately and methodically sought to manipulate the social environment to achieve a pre-conceived purpose.34 Summary Easton's contribution is not to be simply dismissed because questions occur about his adaptation of systems theory. His impor- tant point is the argument in behalf of the generality of political functions and structures. And this argument has had important effects on the comparative study of politics. The analogue system remains, however, as a "unique" system. And that is not a fatal weakness; in some respects that aspect of the conceptual character of an Eastonian understanding of system 34Tang Tsou, America's Failure in China: l94l-l950 (Chicago, l963), p. 397. l07 is its strength. However, real difficulty arises in analyzing inter-system exchanges with an Input-Conversion-Output system in that there is no apparent solution to the problem of providing a systems analysis of a system's environment. The environment cannot be broken down into meaningful areas of social life. Hence, there is no way to tell how the political function articulates with other social functions; or to tell the relative importance of the political function compared to other social functions. The emphasis remains on the structure and process characteristics of the political system. Unlike Easton, users of the analogue systems approach have devoted more attention to the internal structures and processes of the political system.35 The fact that Easton slighted the internal properties of the political system adds an additional handicap to the conceptualization. To over simplify, Easton left the political system as a "little balck box" connected in some ambiguous fashion to its environment through its feedback loops. Despite the two major limitations of the analogue systems approach, its "unique" relationship to its environment and the lack of specificity about the internal variables of the political system, the conceptualization has a utility. It has utility due to certain assumptions. One of the unstated premises of the analogue model is the approximation it has to a type of empirical political system, the sovereign national state.36 35The most significant demonstration of the model is William C. Mitchell, The American Polity(New York, l963), pp. 2-25. 36Meehan,‘Contemporary Political Thought, p. l74. lOB When the model is applied to data observed in western, modernized nation-states, it does indeed have a heurestic value. Its formal conceptual limitations are not readily apparent. Political systems do "authoritatively allocate values" for the whole social system and they do act more or less as neutral structures to process and adjudicate disputes. But the hidden assumptions, when confronted by political data from other types of social systems, are revealed. The strengths and limitations of an Analogue system approach are well stated by one of its most thoughtful and provocative theorists, Morton A. Kaplan. Kaplan appreciates the problems of constructing a “general theory of all systems" based on any given set of analogies since "systems" as different as the “smallest cell of the human body" and “inclusive systems such as the human being . . . the human personality, small groups, broader institutions, societies and collections of societies, such as the international system" may display "homologous processes" while still requiring "different theories for (their) explanation."37 37Morton A. Kaplan, "Systems Theory," Contemporary Political Analysis, ed., J. C. Charlesworth (New York, l967), p.TTB41 CHAPTER V A SPECIFIC-PERFORMANCE SYSTEM Conceptual Scope The greatest use of systems analysis for comparative study of political behavior is found in the formulation of a specific- performance system.1 The best example of a specific-perfbrmance system's approach is found in the writings of Gabriel A. Almond.2 This type of systems approach as conceived and applied by Almond and others is the most specific and empirical use of the systems concept existing in the social sciences. One measure of its influence is the rapidly growing body of literature applying or criticising this particular approach to comparative political study. 1This type of systems analysis is called a "specific-performance“ system although no specific performance is mentioned. The actual performance function varies within the general parameters consistent with preservation. Robert A. Dahl, Who Governs: Problems of Democracy in an American Cit (New Haven, Conn., l961), provides a goodillustra- '3? the concept. ee also Carl J. Friedrich, Man and His Government: _An Empirical Theory of Politics (New York, l9635, p. 551 2The major attempts by Almond to fbrmulate such a systems approach are examined below in an analysis of "Introduction: A Functionalist Approach to Comparative Politics," in The Politics «of Developing Areas, eds., Gabriel A. Almond and James S. Coleman (Princeton, wry—o , and Gabriel A. Almond and o. Bingham Powell, Jr., Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach (Boston, l966), ch. 6 ‘far an analysis. See also the essays by Gabriel A. Almond, ”Political .Systems and Political Change," American Behavioral Scientist, 9 (1963): 3-lO; and “A Developmental Approach to Political Systems,“ 50er Politics, l7 (1965): l83-2l4. 109 llO The concept of political system developed especially for political analyses, and particularly for the analyses of developing nations, differs in theory and practice from the other systems approaches illustrated in the writings of Talcott Parsons and David Easton. And, the greatest difference stems from the emphasis on empirical research stressed by the users of the specific-performance systems concept. But, as will become evident, some difficult theo— retical problems are ultimately confronted because of a primary emphasis on research. The political system defined as a specific-performance structure is explicitly defined as a distinct and separate aspect of the social whole. It is understood as a special system and significantly different from all other social systems--unique in the sense that Easton's conception of political system is "unique" as well as literally unique as observed in empirical research. The distinctive- ness of this type of system concept derives from the fact that it is neither an analogy borrowed from known concrete structures in other sciences such as the mechanistic system borrowed from classical, "closed“ physics, the organismic system borrowed from modern, "open" thermodynamics, the organic system borrowed from biological science, or the circuit system borrowed from cybernetics. So it differs significantly from general systems theory in that it lacks ‘the theoretical elegence of other systems approaches it is used at a certain disadvantage; but the theoretical disadvantage is balanced by an empirical advantage. The other sense in which a specific-perfbrmance system is a Ianique systems approach can be seen in the assumption that there is an observable political structure in all independent social lll systems. The existence of a political system is not questioned. Nor does the specific-performance systems approach direct attention to any identifiable structures or variable set of structures serving a given function. Instead, attention is focused on a list of system characteristics or capabilities taken to characterize the system. Emphasis is placed on the observation of actual processes of social action, as in an Eastonian approach, but to a greater degree and without the use of an analogue concept from which to deduce a list of characteristics. Easton's system approach was described as a "unique systems" approach due to the implications of the analogue method. The specific-performance systems approach is similarly "unique,“ not because of the influence of an analogue from which categories of explanation are drawn, but due to the very observations made lieut the consequences of the actual operations of the existing process within the political institutions of the society. The observations made about the operations of the political system in the context of a specific-performance systems approach that lead to this conclusion are influenced by the definition of politics. The definition of "politics" influences the kind of observations made and, in turn, the observations confirm the definition. Weber's definition of the state as "a human community that claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory," supports most of the definitions of politics found in the systems literature of political science.3 The Functional 3A review of Almond's theoretical fbundations reveals some correspondence between the categories developed by Harold D. Lasswell and his own. Almond, "Introduction: A Functional Approach," Politics of Developing Areas, eds., Almond and Coleman, pp. l3-16. The primary source remains Max Weber, "Politics as a Vocation," From Max Weber; Essa s in Sociolo , trans., and ed., Hans H. Gertfi and C. Wright Hills (New VorE, l958). pp. 78-128. ll2 system is the clearest example. Yet, this definition creates certain limitations when it is used in comparative politics: small, primitive or traditional societies without a commonly accepted set of insti- tutions to exercise a monopoly on the legitimate use of coercion would be excluded from the scope of the study. This narrowing of the scope of the study because of a restrictive definition especially handicaps the comparative study of developing nations. Another commonly used definition of "politics" found in systems theory is more comprehensive, hence more useful, although drawing on Weber's definition. David Easton's definition of politics as the "authoritative allocation of values" binding on the whole society is more appropriate as a basis for a comparative study since it is applicable to general social systems rather than restricted to "states.” However, the general ambiguity of Easton's definition presents other problems, i.e., how is the political system to be separated from other social systems? Any gain in comprehensiveness in the types of societies included in the scope of the study is offset by the loss in specificity in analyzing different types of societies. Almond, then, proposes to build a base for a comparative study of politics by combining the elements, "legitimate use of physical force” and “territory“ from Weber's definition, with the element of comprehensiveness from Easton's definition. The resulting definition of “politics" is: "the system of interaction found in all independent societies which performs the political functions by means of the employment of more or less physical compulsion."4 4Almond, ”Introduction: A Functional Approach," Politics of Developing Areas, eds., Almond and Coleman, p. 7. ll3 The consequence of this definition of "politics" for a specific- performance analysis of political behavior changes the meaning of function. As you will remember, Parsons uses the term "function” to refer to the main referent, the central characteristic, of a particular pattern of action. The functional specialization of goal- attainment is that which defines and identifies the political system; the definition of “politics" is derived from the general activity of goal-attainment. The assumption made by Parsons is that politics is a social function.5 Easton identifies the function of the political system by examining the processes of the political structures. The general functional specialization of political systems is the legitimization of value configurations for the society as a whole. Almond accepts the definition chosen by Easton and then defines the area of the political as coterminous with the society as a whole. The acceptance of the definition equates the political with the whole society and in this way disposes of the problem found in Parsons of formulating a whole society or "supra- system” beyond the political system. And the implicit assumption of uniqueness fbund in Easton which conflicts with the assumption of boundary is corrected.6 The full consequence of the definition of "politics“ for the understanding of “function“ has only recently become clear. The reformulation by Almond of his earlier seven-functions approach as a specific-perfbrmance system into a developmental performance system was implied in his original definition of "politics." As the definition continues to be used, input functions and output 5Above, Ch. III. 6Above, Ch. IV. ll4 capabilities are understood as inherent elements of the definition and categories of activity that must be identified in order for the political system to exist. The categories of functional analysis now used--maintenance and adaptation, conversion and capability-- are best understood as a clarification of the categories formerly used--input of demands and supports, formulation of policy, and execution of policy--rather than a revision or reformulation of concepts. In order to clarify the meaning and significance of the specific- performance systems approach, and the way in which it combines and synthesized Parsons' and Easton's understanding of systems analyses, a review of the two clearest fOrmulations of the approach is neces- sary. First we will analyze the concept of system formulated in The Politics of Developing Areas, (l960), consider some representative cirticisms of this formulation, and then examine a later formulation presented in Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach, (l966). Functional Variables The Politics of DevelopingAreas is a collective work informed by Gabriel A. Almond's first exploration of the problem of systema- tically comparing particular kinds of political systems by a common set of categories.7 The categories of analysis introduced in this work were given only a preliminary trial by his collaborators in 'the volume and the results fell short of the mark pr0posed by Almond g 7Almond attempts to develop a comparative method begins with vuork in EurOpean politics. See Gabriel A. Almond, R. Cole, and 52. McCridis, “A Suggested Research Strategy in West European Govern- Inent and Politics," American Political Science Review, 49 (l955): 'lO42-49; Gabriel A. Almond, 1TA Comparative Study of Interest Groups and the Political Process," American Political Science Review, 52 (1953): 270-32. llS in his introductory essay.8 The concluding essay in the volume reveals the difficulty of the task as James S. Coleman is forced to explain why the systematic comparison of developing political systems was accomplished "only to very limited extent."9 The collected essays contributed to a greater understanding of non-Western political systems but they did so by departing from the common set of categories Almond suggested for use. Coleman could summarize the collected work only after indicating his "profound awareness of the gross character of the judgments" represented by the functional classi- fications; the systems could be brought together in one framework of analysis only at the "highest level of generalization"; and still the resulting classification he regarded as both tenative and disputable.10 But it takes only a moment's reflection to understand the separation between Almond's proposed theory and his co-authors' 1‘ For one thing, the book is not the work of one hand practice . but of many and it is not to be wondered at that those many hands were moved by different minds. But the lack of coherence, the lack of uniformity, the lack of comprehensiveness, to to some extent com- pensated by the variety of viewpoints, the variety of concepts, and 3Almond, "Introduction: A Functional Approach," Politics of Developing Areas, eds., Almond and Coleman, p. 3. 9James 5. Coleman, “Conclusion: The Political Systems of Developing Areas," ibid., p. 576. ‘oibid.. pp. 533-35. 11There was not only the problem of refining and applying sociological and anthropological concepts to compare political data, but also the wide variety of academic backgrounds. See Gabriel A. Almond, "Preface,“ ibid., pp. vii-viii. ll6 the variety of backgrounds within the volume. Almond presented his proposed theory as an intimation of a major step forward in the nature of political science as science. Hence, it was not a step that could be taken by a single man. Indeed, it would have been curious had the first attempt at this most serious goal succeeded given the magnitude of knowledge required. Six men, each with a part of the knowledge of Bacon or Newton, do not equal Bacon or Newton. The ultimate goal for Almond is to develop “a probabilistic theory of politics" based on a new and coherent way of thinking about political behavior.12 The most serious impediment to the progress of political theory is the absence of a theory of the poli- tical system itself. The concepts necessary for a systemic analysis of the polity are vague and incomplete despite the growing use made of the systems model. Hence, Almond's major purpose in The Politics of DevelopinggAreas is to sharpen the systemic analysis of political life by specifying the properties of systems-~or to indicate the kind of research necessary to sharpen the analysis-~rather than develop a theory itself.13 Almond presents his essay in the volume as an exploration in the use of systems categories in the comparative study of Western and non-Western political systems. The primary problem which he must resolve is to identify a common set of categories by which these two broad types of political systems can be classified and compared.14 The procedure by which this problem is approached lelmond, "Introduction: A Functional Approach,“ ibid., p. 4. 13The concluding part of Almond's essay anticipates but fails to prevent the obvious theoretical criticisms. Ibid., pp. 58-62. ‘41bid.. pp. 9-l6. ll7 is to formulate certain general properties of political systems; the procedure involves a discussion of "system" and the general properties of political systems. The acceptance of Easton's and Weber's definition is only the beginning point for a reformulation of systems analysis. The combi- nation of definitions is itself the bridge for the transition from a discussion of the political to a discussion of the systemic charac- teristics of political systems. The definition of political singles out a certain set of social interaction to which the definition of system attributes a certain set of properties. Political systems have three distinctive facets.15 One, the political system is comprehensive in that all social institutions and all patterns of action that affect the use of coercion to influence the pattern of value distribution are components of the political system. Two, the political system is inter-dependent in that change in the pattern of activity in one segment of the system has a reciprocal effect on other segments of the political system as well as all other segments of society. Three, the political system has boundaries that separate it from other patterns of activity and limits its scope of action. Given this preliminary identification of the characteristics of the political system, Almond continues, what are the general functions of political systems? The context in which the question is answered is a self-conscious comparative approach towards the analysis of what Almond understands to be two general kinds of societies standing at opposite ends of a social continuum: a developed political system and a developing political system. Since y 15The initial statements in ibid., pp. 9-l6 have been revised in Almond and Powell, Comparative Politics. See below Ch. VI. ll8 Almond is adopting a specific-performance systems approach he has before him data from empirical political systems from which general properties are abstracted, the democratic industrial society of Western European origin. And, given his approach and the source of his data from which his classificatory schema is drawn, the criticisms to be discussed below are not unexpected.16 There are f0ur general characteristics to political systems in Almond's conceptualization: 1. All political systems have political structure. 2. Similar functions are found in all political systems. 3. All political structures are multifunctional. 4. All political systems are culturally “mixed" systems. The two broad axes within the four general characteristics emphasize organization and style. The overall framework for systems analysis is supported by structural-functional categories emphasizing struc- tures and patterns of action and environmental categories affecting the pattern of action within the political system. The initial significance of combining these two kinds of characteristics reflects Almond's attempt to combine the two pre- vailing types of systems analysis into a comprehensive approach suited for comparative political analysis. Although he begins by 16A perceptive article that clarifies Almond's assumptions as well as those of his critics is found in Samuel B. Huntington, "Political Modernization: America vs. Europe,“ World Politics, 18 (l965): 378-414. 17A useful summary and comparison of Almond's characteristics is found in H. V. Wiseman, Political S tems: Some Sociolo ical A roaches (New York, l966), pp. 131-- 7. See ATmond, "Introduction, unctional Approach, Politics of Developing Areas, eds., Almond and Coleman, p. ll. l19 accepting Easton's analogue model, he expands it to escape what he understands to be an excessive dependence on a generic model of system. Hence, the conventional input-output analyses would be unsuited for comparative political analysis of developing nations.18 He incorporates elements of Parsons' functional system but in such a way as to escape a theoretical problem in the formulation by making it operationally significant for analysis of developing systems. The details of his attempted synthesis will be explored later. At the moment it is only necessary to recognize the dimension of the synthesis in order to keep the functional model in perspective. The assertion that all independent societies have political structures denies one of the established and misleading distinctions long held as a basic principle of comparative political analysis.19 The distinction between types of societies must be a question of degree rather than a question of fbrm itself; in other words, Almond lays to rest the idea of 'state/non-state” as a meaningful political standard. Indeed his definition of "political“ implies the univer- sality of political behavior from which the criterion of “state“ 18Nettl criticises the lack of attention to the societal functions of political system outputs in Easton's formulation as a major gap. Nettl also notes that Almond has not wholly overcome this problem; hence, Almond and Easton are attacked fbr smuggling in “liberal biases." See Peter Nettl, "The Concept of System in Political Science," Political Studies, I! (1966): 305-38. 19The recent discovery by anthropologists of the existence and importance of organized political systems in ”primitive" societies is only beginning to find acceptance in systemic theories. See Issac Scha era, Government and Politics in Tribal Societies (New York, l956 ; Meyer Fortes and E. E. EvansJFritEhard, eds., African Political S stems (London, l940); Lucy Mair, Primitive Government (Baltimore, l932). lZO derives.20 Political systems lay somewhere on a criteria (precisely, two criterion as the question of function is a separate standard) of the degree and manner in which order is maintained in the society. Systems, because they are systems, necessarily possess a legitimate pattern of interaction which is itself an order. The statement of the universality of political structure allows comparison on the basis of the differentiation and the visability of the structures, but not on the existence or non-existence of the structures. To say that political functions are universal is to require the corollary that political structures are universal. And the basis of classification and comparison is primarily a functional criteria that the structural criteria supplements and expands. Due to a lack of perfect identity between structure or process and function or behavior it is more important to ask functional questions than it is to concentrate on structural characteristics. It is the functional properties rather than the structural characteristics that are common and a more fruitful course of comparison.21 For example, there could be great structural differences in the adjudi- cation function of two societies. On the one hand, an independent court based on a codified law, established by a constitution, and empowered to resolve conflicts between independent political units 20"In studying political organization, we have to deal with the maintenance or establishment of social order, within a terri- torial framework, by the organized exercise of coercive authority through the use, or the possibility of use, or physical force" (A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, "Preface," African Political S stems, eds., Fortes and Evans-Pritchard, p. xiv). Compare Radcliffe-Brown's definition with that of Almond. 2‘Crick argues against this statement by insisting on a distinc- tion between the maintenance of order and public deliberations in institutionalized structures. Only the latter is evidence of a "poli- tical system," he argues. See Bernard R. Crick, In Defense of Politics, rev. ed. (Baltimore, l964), pp. 180-85. 1.!) “h:- . lZl would be very different from, on the other hand, tribal priests, co-opted by tribal leaders, and ordained by their possession of sacred symbols to resolve tribal disputes by an appeal to the tradi- tional dieties. But it would be hasty in this formulation to assume an inherent difference in these two instances of political behavior due to the structural differences.22 Structural comparison alone is like “comparative anatomy without comparative physiology." Almond suggests a reversal in the order of inquiry in order to search for the functional properties prior to a structural analysis. Similar functions may underlie divergent structures. The two remaining characteristics of multifunctionality and cultural heterogeneity are significant for a fuller understanding of political structures and functions. To begin with there is an assumption made by some systems analysts that specialization of function produces differentiation of structure that needs qualification.23 Almond cautions against any assumption of easy identification of struc- ture and function even in developed political systems; he suggests a modification in the prevailing assumption, namely, that the distinc- tive feature of deveTOped systems is a monopolization in the regula- tion of a function by a corresponding structure.24 22The illustration is similar to an example given by H. L. A. Hart, Law, Liberty, and Morality (New York, l963). 23The major analysis of the correspondence of structure and function deflates any assumed l:l relation. See S. N. Eisenstadt, The Political Systems of Empires (New York, 1963). 24The theoretical and monographic work on interest groups provides ample support for Almond's position. Almond, "Introduction: A Functional Approach," Politics of Developing_Areas, eds., Almond and Coleman, p. 18. See Peter M. Blau, EXChange and‘Power in Social Life (New York, l968); Joseph LaPalombara, Interest Groups in Italian Politics (Princeton, 1964); Henry Ehrmann, Interest—Groups onFourZCOntinents (Pittsburgh, l958). l22 It would be especially dangerous to entertain this concept of full identity in the more fluid, diffuse situation found in developing systems. At best, there is a tendency toward differentiation and specialization that provides an important differential between systems types but it remains a question of degree. The relationship of cultural heterogeneity to development is similar. Given the universality of structure and function and the tendency toward functional specialization, there is reason to infer "cultural dualism" rather than assume a monistic environmental situation.25 There is evidence to support the contention that primary and latent desires and patterns of behavior continue to persist in all systems types rather than fully yield to secondary and manifest patterns. This continuing cultural dualism establishes a modal type of political orientation differing from system to system. But due to the influence of both poles of the continuum the argument that certain orientations and certain patterns of socializations are found only with certain structures and functions is not fully supported. The foundation for the functional analysis developed in Ihg_ Politics of Developing Areas is the functional variables of the political system. The general aspect of the conceptualization most significant for the schema is, "If the functions are there, the structures must be . . . ."26 The specific-performance systems analysis 25Almond resolves an ambiguity in the pattern variable categories by treating them as "ideal types" to categorize the "style" of action and criticises Parsons for using them as dichotomous variables. Almond, "Introduction: A Functional Approach," Politics of Developing_ Areas, eds., Almond and Coleman, p. 22. 26Ibid., p. l6. 123 is equally a specific functions analysis for Almond's argument rests ultimately on the utility of classifying and comparing political systems by means of functional activities. And he presents his seven-functions schema as a distillation of those "distinctive poli- tical activities existing in . . . complex political systems."27 His functional categories are: INPUT FUNCTIONS Political Socialization and Recruitment Interest Articulation Interest Aggregation Political Communication OUTPUT FUNCTIONS Rule-making Rule-application Rule-adjudication28 The influence of an Eastonian analogue system is evident in the manner in which Almond presents his categories of analysis; the major distinction referred to by the Input-Output categories is the dis- tinction between the political and the governmental dimensions of the political system. The emphasis selected by Almond is the political rather than the governmental functions of the system; the primary grounds for comparison are the structure and process of the input characteristics of the system rather than the conventional output characteristics.29 27The reasons for the prior selection of the criteria by Almond is found in his analysis of political parties. See Almond, “A Comparative Stu of Interest Groups," American Political Science Reyigg. 52 (1958 : 270-82. 28The general characteristics of the functional variables are discussed in general and tentative terms. Almond, "Introduction: A Functional Approach," Politics of Developing Areas, eds., Almond and Coleman, p. 17. 291ne analytical distinction used by Almond is found in greater detail in David E. Apter, "A Comparative Method for the Study of Politics," American Journal of Sociology, 64 (1958): 221-37. 124 As I have already indicated, an emphasis on the informal and behavioral aspects of political activity was a major aspect of the scientific reorientation given political science. Almond's seven-function schema would be important if for no other reason that it marks the first explicit introduction of this approach to comparative politics. And this approach was well suited to the data chosen for examination in that the formal, institutional aspects of political behavior was conspiciously absent in the developing areas. But there is a theoretical problem inherent in an undue reliance on political functions. And the problem is how to identify systemic properties of political systems.30 Among the three properties of systems mentioned above are “comprehensiveness" and "boundary” and there is an apparent contradiction between them.3l If the political system is constituted by all behavior related to the “legitimate use of coercion“ then how is it to be separated from its environment of other systems and its boundaries located? The contradiction is removed by Almond in the suggestion that specific input categories function as "guardians" of the boundaries. The translation of social needs into political demands occurs through the operation of political functions and their input to the governmental structures. 30To illustrate the problem, consider the analytical signifi- cance of the phrase "independent societies“ in Almond's definition when colonial polities are examined. A good supplement and explana- tion can be found in Rupert Emerson, From Empire to Nation: The Rise to Self-Assertion of Asian and African‘PeopTes (Boston, 1960), especiaTTy Part 4. 31An alternative solution is found in Karl W. Deutsch, "Social Mobilization and Political Development," American Political Science Review, 55 (1961): 493-514; Karl A. Deutsch and William J. Foltz, eds., Nation-Buildigg (New York, 1963). 125 The governmental functions are not separately discussed but treated only briefly by Almond for they play an insignificant part in his functional concept. He has adopted the existing functional arrangement in western political systems mainly fbr the sake of convenience. As he points out, all functional categories used in his sytems analysis are "unique to particular aspects of the poli- tical system being examined."32 The selection of variables must be adapted to the given purpose informing the analysis. Almond's purpose is to propose a schema useful for the comparison of Western and non-Western political systems and hence he chose to emphasize those aspects, input functions, most distinctive of political behavior in the political systems he judged most complex.33 Paradigm Utility The seven-function schema develOped by Almond and his collaborators is the major foundation upon which a specific-performance systems analysis rests. But this does not mean that a uniform theoretical structure is created within which the comparative study of political systems occurs. Indeed, this is hardly the case for the controversy engendered by the seven-functions approach is proportionate to its uniqueness. Nevertheless the controversy itself is an indication of the significance of the proposal in that it establishes a common 321f Almond is to be faulted for the selection of his variables, it should be acknowledged that he is the first to assert the tentative status of his selection. The analytical sophistication and data now existing makes his general discussion vulnerable; yet, the advance that has occured probably would not have occured without his taking the first step. 33The systems typology adopted by Almond as well as the argument for using the criteria of complexity to identify functional variables are fbund in Edward A. Shils, Political Development in the New States (The Hague, 1960). 126 ground for proposals for a theory of comparative politics. Whether one agrees or not, the proposal must be taken as the beginning point for a systemic examination of the political system. The creation of the specific-performance system analysis has been the continuous and common concern of students of comparative politics in three general ways. The response has been one of support, revision, or rejection, and reasons for the responses differ. Perhaps it would be accurate to aggregate the responses of support and revision into one category while at the same time subdividing the critics of Almond's proposal into two camps. There is justifi- cation for asserting a similarity between the supporters and revisors of the seven-function schema in the later work of Almond. The proposal outlined in The Politics of Developing_Areas was reconsidered six years later in a second book, Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach. The titles suggest the similarity in the works and indicate the scope of the revision. Substantial criticisms encountered in applying the seven-function model were incorporated to present a dynamic schema of functional analysis much more explicit in its presentation of theoretical problems. The major sources from which the reorientation arises are exemplified in the revisions suggested by studies of politics in developing areas which encountered operationsl and ultimately theoretical problems in the seven-function model. Hence, the second proposal presents a “developmental approach" rather than a model for the analysis of "developing areas." Criticisms of the seven-function schema are of two types: objections to the proposal on theoretical grounds alone and objections on theoreticaleggmrpractical grounds. The former criticisms stem from a concern for the logical and conceptual characteristics of the 127 seven-functional model and, more broadly, objections to the concept of "specific performance" systems analysis. The latter objected on nominally theoretical grounds that the schema was misleading and inappropriate to the data present in "developing areas.“ Instead, alternative formulations of a specific-performance model are presented as more useful fOr inquiry into the nature and practice of compara- tive political analysis. Whatever taxonomy of the responses to the proposal made by Almond is made the general categories are acceptance (with modifica- tions of particular elements) or rejection. In order to illustrate the alternatives present in the practical revisions and the criticisms of the seven-functional model, I shall consider typical examples of the literature produced in response to The Politics of Developipgp Agggg, This illustration will make an examination of the “Developmental Approach" more fruitful. ‘ A persistent fbrm of criticism directed against the seven- functions model objects to the lack of logical and conceptual clarity in the basic concepts of the proposal.34 The charge is that since there is some ambiguity involved in the construction of the language used in the "model," it cannot be a “theory." Hence it cannot be entertained as a source of propositions to be used in empirical research. 34Robert E. Dowse, "A Functionalist's Logic," World Politics, 18 (1966): 607-22. 128 This form of criticism denies any merit to the approach in that preliminary and minimum requirements for a theory of political organization are lacking.35 The very language of the proposal cannot be case in terms that allow falsification due to the inadequate conceptualization involved. That is, the terms used as a basis for the proposal are themselves tautologous. The general term “function" is misused, it is argued, in that it is never defined but used in a general manner to mean "activity." The list of seven "universal functions" are invalid on the surface since they are not deduced-- there is nothing from which the deduction could occur. In a dimilar manner, the attempt to define "system” is inadequate and apparently means a form of general inter-dependence.36 The attempt to define "system" is invalid since it is a tautological definition. The "system" is what it does and presumably if it stopped behaving in the manner in which it formerly behaved it would no longer be a "system?" Furthermore, key elements of the definition such as “integration" and "adaptation" are not defined and they too are tautologies. Similar objections are raised to the remainder of the terms of the vocabulary of the proposal.37 The criticism extends to the consequences of attempting to use such a proposal for a comparative study of political systems. The conceptual flaws invalidate the methodology of the approach. 35Arthur L. Kalleberg, "The Logic of Comparison: A Methodological Ngtelon the82 Comparative Study of Political Systems," World Politics, 967 69-& 36Eugene J. Meehan, Contemporary Political Thought: A Critical Stugy (Homewood, Ill. .1967). PP 176e79. 37Dowse, "A Functionalist's Logic," World Politics: 610-16. 129 The logical requirements alone of constructing a meaningful compara- tive study are not met; a comparison could not be undertaken in the absence of a basis for classification. One basis for this denial of intellectual status to the seven-function model is the analytical distinction between "classification" and "comparison."38 The first step in theory building would be the construction of standard cate- gories or classes of things established by reference to a principle which requires an evaluation of ”either/or“ for any given object. Only if this is done would it be possible to classify two different political systems. Comparison requires an evaluation in terms of "more or less" for any given object. To the extent the basis for classifications is obscure, comparison is meaningless.39 This criticism is best illustrated by the problem of distin- guishing between the functions of Interest Articulation and Interest Aggregation. The model requires that a given instance of behavior is either articulation or aggregation and there must be an objective standard by which to classify. And Almond, it is argued, makes the major mistake of confusing classification and comparison in his seven-functions schema.40 38Kalleberg, "The Logic of Comparison," World Politics: 71. 39The assumption behind the “meaningless" statement is similar to the position held by Oran Young, above, Ch. II. It is not simply true that meaningful comparison is precluded without scientific theory; the comparison is neither scientific nor theoretical. The problem is identified by Merton: “Embedded in every functional analysis is some conception, tacit or expressed, of functional requirements . . . . This remains one of the cloudiest and empirically most debatable concepts of the functional theory“ (Robert Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure, rev. ed [New York, 1957], p. 52). 40If Almond presents his approach as a foundation of a "probabi- listic theory" leading to a theory of development, hence capable of predicting political development, he is on weak ground. See Robert T. Holt and John E. Turner, The Political Basis of Economic Development: 130 The significant aspect of this form of criticism is that it is inappropriate and misdirected. Generally it is made by attributing to the seven-functions approach assumptions not made by Almond or his collaborators.4l The purpose of the proposal is also overlooked. The criticism of the language of the proposal proceeds on the assumption that Almond is claiming the status of "theory" in the most rigorous sense of the word for his proposal. I think it is otherwise.42 The criticism is based on the supposed weaknesses of the approach when presented as a unified collection of deductive statements purposing to describe a system, statements drawn from a theory of the political system. Almond never presents his proposal as a full-blown theory but only as a proposal by which to generate a theory. The logical criteria are inapplicable and prematurely applied.43 Furthermore, exacting demands for additional rigor in the vocabu- lary of systems analysis are at the same time demands for the abandonment of the kind of systems approach employed by Almond.44 The implication of the charge made against the seven-functions approach is that concepts of systems analysis be reserved for use by general systems analysis in a Functional systems mode of analysis. In short, An Egplsnation in Comparative Political Analysis (Princeton, 1966), PP- ' - 41Kalleberg, "The Logic of Comparison," World Politics: 81-82. 42Above, "Functional Variables." 43What Almond is presenting is an analytical construct rather than a description of a political system drawn from an already iden- tified theory of a political system. The strict logical criticism must give way to discussion of his implicit assumptions. 44This is the advice of Fred W. Riggs, "The Theory of Developing Polities," World Politics, 16 (1963): 147-51. 131 there is an element of premptory jealousy involved. To try to meet the criticism would be to endeavor to do something the critics them- selves admit as impossible at this time, as well as to cease to attempt to apply systems concepts to comparative political study of developing nations.45 However, the criticisms of the logical character of the seven- functions approach have had a paradoxical effect. A careful analysis of the analytical basis of the seven-functions proposal yields a valid suggestion for improvement. Due to the observed weaknesses in Almond's proposal when measured by a formal conceptualization of system, an additional charge of failing to present an "equilibrium condition" can be made. But on further examination there is indeed an element of static equilibrium inherent in the model.46 The critics of the type discussed would demand additional conditions of equilibrium be taken into account; a "theory" of the political system is weakened to the extent the "equilibrium conditions" are obscured. However, a merit by one standard of systems analysis is a demerit in a specific-performance systems analysis. But the demand made by critics to consider the question of equilibrium is valid. Almond's response to the demand is to consider the conditions of 45Meehan refers to such criticism as assigning to political science a "bootstrap operation." Eugene J. Meehan, Ex lanation In Social Science: A System Paradigm (Homewood, Ill., 1965), p 27. 46Almond refers to the property of “inter-dependence" as one property of a political system; he explains the property as " . . a change in one subset of interactions . . produces changes in all other subsets" (Almond, "Introduction: A Functional Approach, " Politics of Developinngreas, eds., Almond and Coleman, p. 8). If he means that as an analytic statement, he must elaborate the calculas by which to describe the reciprocity. See Alvin Gouldner, "Reciprocity and Autonomy," S osium on Sociological Theory, ed.,. Llellynn Gross (New York, 1959;, pp. 248-50. 132 equilibrium in order to eliminate them from the conceptualization of the approach-~not to fully incorporate them.47 Formal systems analysis is deficient in the analysis of "traditional" or "developing" whole systems due to a reliance on the equilibrium concept. It is hardly apprOpriate to consider the question of stability in a society whose disfunctional character is in large part a function of equili- brium. It would certainly obscure and perhaps distort one of the variables of major importance--the disequilibrating forces of social change, especially political change. Theoretical-ggm:practical criticism of the seven-function schema is more commonly found, especially in the works of students of compa- rative politics. Various kinds of problems in the proposal can be pointed out as evidence of its weakness.48 The criticism is the implicit ground to suggest an alternative approach to comparative analysis. The need and the usefulness of a general framework of analysis based on a specific—performance system is not debated. The question that is answered in the negative is whether the Almond proposal provides such a framework. 47Almond intends to focus analysis on problems other than "integration" and "adaptation" for he claims these foci are scien- tifically ”regressive.“ He clearly separates himself from the fundamental proposition of Parsons' theory of action. Almond, "Introduction: A Functional Approach," Politics of Developing Areas, eds., Almond and Coleman, p. 5. 48Holt and Turner share this concern and find the decisive problem to the confusion between a "modern" system and a "democratic" system.]4Holt and Turner, The Political Basis of Economic Development, pp. 3" o 133 The strongest of the criticisms of this variety is found in a book by Leonard R. Binder, Ireg,49 His criticism appears to be a varient of the logical criticism reviewed above but it has a special difference. Binder argues that the general categories of political activity universalized by Almond are "neither logically nor empiri- cally derived (except as that term may be used in the loosest sense.)"50 The actual basis for the categories of political functions is ”an (implicit) metaphysical fbundation which permits abstraction of qualities from behavior, and which justifies limiting the scope of interest."51 But to Binder, criticism of the logic and the concepts in the Almond schema is secondary to a major argument about the value of the schema. Binder is not interested in demonstrating the incorrectness of the proposal but in assessing its utility. And his judgment on the infeasibility of the seven-functions model leads him to formulate a different version of a specific-performance system.52 Almond's proposal may be interesting and perceptive but it hardly compels serious attention according to Binder; it is "really neither functionalist nor a system."53 The use of the term "functiona- list" to describe the seven-functions model is misleading except 49Leonard Binder, Iran: Political Development in a Chan in Societ (Berkeley, 1962), pp. 1-58. See also idem, Religion ang Politics in Pakistan (Berkeley, 1961). 5°Binder, Iran, p. 7. 5‘Ioid. 521bid., pp. 46-50. Binder suggests a three-fold criteria of political development, administrative development, and economic development. 53Ibid.. pp. 1o-12. 134 to serve as a device to draw attention to what happens in politics rather than examine formal constitutional imperitives. It refers to what is done within the polity--the politica1 functions-~rather than the principles of “functionalism." The result is a collection of descriptive categories of political action and not a formulation of analytical or empirically derived categories. Due to the use of functionalism to refer to the general impact of behavior upon political structures it makes little sense to say Almond presents an analysis of the political system. He has no under- standing of system, Consequently there is no empirical or analytical reason to limit the categories of political behavior to the number seven identified by Almond. It cannot serve as a foundation for comparative study since there is no understanding of system by which to postulate comparative categories of political behavior suitable for application in widely divergent political systems. The proposal presented by Almond is grounded in the description of political activity found in Western political systems. However accurate and applicable the seven-functions schema is for categorizing political behavior in such systems it has nothing to strongly recommend its use in categorizing political activity in developing areas.54 Even though the categories are broad enough to be universally applied, there is no reason to assume they are more relevant or more useful than older existing categories or later, new categories. The capability 54The argument by Binder is here extended and meant to apply to other attempts to explore the workings of political systems by a survey of "environmental conditions" or “correlates" of political action. He refers to S: M. Lipset, "Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Legitimacy," American Political Science Review, 53 (l959):69-105; Karl W. Deutsch, i'Toward an Inventory EffiBasic Trends and Patterns in Comparative and International Politics,“ American Political Science Review, 54 (1960): 34-57. 135 of the schema to disect Western political behavior, a special type of whole system, does not necessarily extend to other types of poli- tical behavior. In a general analysis of whole systems the seven- functional schema is ultimately limited to a specific type of system and not useful--or not as useful--for the purpose for which it was intended. Binder suggests that one dimension of the “meta-physical fOundation“ upon which the schema is built by Almond is the acceptance of a peculiarity of Western political systems not found in developing systems. He refers to the effect of the environmental setting on the "workings" of the system to support an assertion that Almond places a heavy reliance on the presumed existence of a legitimate system. When this is done it frees the analysts to concentrate on the nature and number of external factors influencing the system or system parts and detracts from a clear examination of the system itself, which is taken for granted.55 This assumption is made with little consequence when the system is established and accepted as legitimate, as it is in developed systems. But what happens when I the political activity under examination is not “dependent" and does not arise from without the "boundaries" of the political system? What happens when the political behavior is "independent," arising from within the system, and concerned with the establishment rather than the operation of the system? While Binder praises Almond's attempt, he rejects the schema as applicable to developing areas. If it is applied, it compounds the existing problem in comparative politics: the comparison of 55Binder, Iran, pp. 13-39. 136 functionally diverse components. Political systems found outside the set of political systems constituted by industrial Western democracies are qualitatively different in Binder's judgment and he is at a loss to apply Almond's schema to different systems.56 There is no "legitimate order-maintaining" system whose influence is comprehensive but a number of partial and often times conflicting order maintaining systems with different kinds of legitimacy. As far as Binder is concerned Almond fails to address himself to the major problems underlying political behavior in developing areas: the attempts to create a political system through the process of adaptation or revolution in the presently existing order(s). An interesting and serious attempt to apply the seven-function schema to analyze the political process of "develOping area" is Myron Weiner's the Politics of Scarcity.57 Weiner explicitly focuses his examination on the two Input functions of Interest Articulation and Interest Aggregation, adopts the framework of analysis suggested by Almond, and attempts to assess the functional consequences of "associations" for Indian politics. 56While Almond uses the concept "legitimate" in his definition of system, he makes no reference to the concept thereafter. Dowse suggests seven different meanings of the term "legitimate“ but is unable to identify the meaning intended by Almond. Dowse, "A Functionalist's Logic," World Politics: 616, fn. 32. 57The Politics of Scarcity: Public Pressure and Political Response in India (Chicago, 1962). 137 Weiner selects those groups meeting Almond's criterion of "Associational interest groups": . . specialized structures of interest arti- culation--trade unions, organizations of businessmen or industrialists, ethnic associations, associations organized by religious denominations, civic groups and the like. Their particular characteristics are explicit representation of the interests of a parti- cular group, orderly procedures for the formulation of interests and demands, and transmission of these demands to other political structures such as poli- tical parties, legislatures, bureaucracies.58 According to Almond, a high incidence of associational interest articulation indicates "good" boundary maintenance. It is difficult to classify Indian associational interest groups by pattern-variable styles, concludes Weiner, since the groups seem to be constituted by a random mixture of characteristics. They all exhibit similar behavior but not in the expected manner outlined in the seven functions schema. Occupational associational groups, caste, linguistic, ethnic non-associational interest groups, and "community" anomic groups all exhibit similar functional behavior patterns as well as similarly mixed styles of behavior.59 The partial failure of Weiner's attempt to apply the seven- functions model raises some questions about its applicability.60 Associations, or groups generally, apparently do not have the predicted effect on Output functions in India. By a process of elimination, it would appear that "institutional interest groups“ are the sources 58Almond, "Introduction: A Functional Approach," Politics of Developing Areas, eds., Almond and Coleman, p. 34. 59Weiner, The Politics of Scarcity, ch. 8. 60Fred W. Riggs argues in a review article that the effective tier of political action in transitional polities is occupied by "clects" rather than associational interest groups. See "The Theory of Developing Polities,“ World Politics: 150-55. 138 of decision-making but they do not function as reflectors of group interests. Decision-making is not performed in the manner and style expected given the presence of associational interest groups and other patterns of political behavior at the formal and institutional level. There are "modern“ structures but they function differently within the system. Weiner discovers the presence of relatively autonomous, self-sustaining units each fulfilling functions for itself, including the "political function," on issues affecting the collectivity as a whole. The problem is a lack of congruence between the formal and the behavioral elements of the system that cannot be explained in terms of the seven-functions schema. The specific problem is: what are the boundaries of the political system; what are the kinds of boundary exchanges; what are the inter-dependencies of the inputs and outputs? Another analysis of the seven-functions approach by Bert H. Hoselitz that produces parallel conclusions sheds some light on the problem.5l Hoselitz understands Almond to provide a general description of a political system in its structural and functional aspects and to identify those forms of social action which are manifestations of the political needs of any society. He proceeds to apply the approach to the particular problem of inter-relations between levels of economic performance and bureaucratic structures. 6lBeri; F. Hoselitz, "Levels of Economic Performance and Bureaucratic Structures," Bureaucracy and Political Develgpment, ed., Joseph LaPalombara (Princeton, 1963), pp.168-98. 139 Levels of economic performance are used as an indicator of adaptive social action concerned with the production of goods and services. Clearly, modern societies exhibit “strong interaction between the adaptive and goal-attainment sectors.”62 The bureau- cracy is selected by Hoselitz because it is situated in the goal- attainment or political sector, is a reliable indicator of the development of goal-gratification sector, and is a central focus around which cluster a whole series of social actions designed to meet systemic goals. The importance of Hoselitz' article is to clarify the implica- tions of Almond's statement on the "multifunctionality" of political structures.63 Hoselitz transposes the concept to apply it to "sets of socially relevant actions" found in the goal-gratification sub- sector of society. Almond applies the concepts to political struc- tures or what is loosly called an “institution.“ Almond suggests the absence of political structures of “institutions“ specialized in the performance of specific functions means the functions are perfbrmed "intermittently" in the interstices of other structures. Hoselitz questions this use of "multifunctionality“ by raising the question of whether there is a significant difference between "socially relevant actions" and "political structures“ as differen- tiated, specialized institutions.64 Almond apparently uses the term 62Hoselitz is applying a Functional mode of analysis to the specific-perfbrmance system since he is interested in sub-sector development and its relationship to the political system. Ibid., pp. 170-73. 63Ioid.. pp. 175-77. 64Hoselitz refers to Fortes and Evans-Pritchard, African Political Systems, to buttress his argument that the important 140 political structure to include sets of social actions in non-complex societies as well as analogous institutions in complex "rationalized" societies. Hoselitz suggests a qualitative distinction exists between "action system" and "institution.“ A discussion of political func- tions should occur on two levels: the level of a simple non-complex society which performs its political functions by means of inter- mittent action systems, and the level Of a differentiated complex society which performs its political functions by means of differen- tiated institutions. Hoselitz concludes by recommending a distinction be made in the understanding of the concept of "structure" as it is used to analyze political action in different types of society.65 The transformation of a structure from an action system to a reasonably rationalized institution ought to be incorporated into the seven- functions schema as evidence of a conscious change in the structure of society with important functional consequences for the patterns of political behavior. The establishment of an institution is something new; not only in the sense that an institution did not exist before but in the sense that the society has undergone a creative transformation. The important point is not the institution itself but the underlying concentration upon the performance of a distinction is not order simply but the growing degree of structural differentiation leading to specialized political institutions in tribal society. Ibid., pp. 185-87. 65The present study of bureaucratic institutions in complex societies is based on a distinction between politics and admini- stration. Unless the executive power is clearly seen, the specific bureaucratic pecularity of administrative institutions is not evident. In the absence of such clarity, what appear to be admini- ggggtive ogggns may be judicial and legislative organs. Hoselitz, ., p. . 141 function formally lacking. It is the establishment of institutions which established a boundary between the various sub-sectors of society; it also establishes a new nexus in society as differentiation proceeds and boundary exchanges occur between functionally differen- tiated sub-sectors.66 The major problem in the seven—functions analysis identified by Hoselitz is insufficient attention to the role of institutionalized behavior and the concomitant functional specialization that follows in its wake. The Almond schema makes: . . full sense within . . . modern political- economic system, because clear-cut and easily identifiable institutions . . . are available whose operations, interchanges, and social behavior with relation to one another can be subjected to precise empirical research.57 It fails to make adequate analysis of simple undifferentiated patterns of social action where “institutions" when they exist are diffuse in function and boundary exchanges are virtually non-existent.68 66A dynamic analysis of political institutions must account for more than the "static" dimension of functional specificity or diffuseness; it must also consider the institution in terms of levels of complexity and degree of efficiency. Ibid., 178-83. 571bid., p. 196. 68For a similar exposition of the problem of boundary identi- fication in undifferentiated societies see Karl W. Deutsch, "Autonomy and Boundaries According to Communication Theory," Toward a Unified Theory of Human Behavior, ed., Roy F. Grinker (New or , , pp.278-972 CHAPTER VI A DEVELOPING SYSTEM Conceptual Revision The "developmental approach" to comparative politics is presented by Gabriel A. Almond as the advancement of the seven-function schema, its foundation.1 Many of the findings and criticisms generated by the seven-functions proposal are evident in the reformulation of the approach as the authors admit, "much of the criticism of the applications of systems theory to politics has real merit."2 Nonetheless, the functional approach to comparative political study is retained in a form "sensitized" to political functions not fully appreciated earlier.3 The additions are in the nature of including functions formerly neglected and in the more explicit formulation of functions. The principal criticisms whose recognition is behind the revi- sion and expansion of the seven-functions approach are the arguments lGabriel A. Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Jr., Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach (Boston, 1966). 2The "bark of the logicians" and criticisms of political scientists have had an impact on the analytic and political dimen- SionSo Ibid., pp. 12-160 3Almond's systemic approach “grows directly out of separation- of-powers theory and the empirical research critical of that theory . . . . Both Easton and Deutsch . . . apply a communication, or cybernetic, model to politics." Almond distinguishes his theorizing as s;lf-con§ciously concerned with political analyses. Ibid., p. , fn. O. 142 143 that an equilibrium or necessary harmony between the part of the political system and the political system and the society was implied, and the charge that there were “static and conservative" implications in the approach.4 The first cirticism leads to an emphasis on inter-dependence as a requisite condition of systemic activity without implying a condition of harmony. The second criticism leads to an emphasis on the nature and direction of change in political systems. Together, the two major criticisms of the earlier approach amount to one critique: the inability of the seven-function schema to explain how and why political systems change. Originally the approach was best suited for an analysis of political systems in a "given cross section of time" but did not lend itself to exploring the question of developmental patterns. The satisfaction of the critique would signal the taking of a "major analytical step."5 It would signify the inclusion of political development as a basic element in the study of political systems. Until a solution is found to the problem of analyzing system interaction and its consequences we cannot come to grips with the processes and procedures of poli- tical development. As the seven-functions schema was presented as a theoretical break-through by incorporating a systems approach to political study, so too does the developmental approach present itself as a major step forward facilitating the study of whole social entities reciprocally related to their environment.6 4Ibid. pp. 12-14. The criticisms have already been encountered in the concluding parts above, Chs. III and IV. 51t would signal the advancement of traditional political theories now outdated by sociological and economic changes. Ibid., pp. 14-15. 6Almond more clearly than any other political scientist would turn political theory towards serving normative principles. Ibid., pp. 331-32. 144 Least it be overlooked, the criticisms incorporated in the developmental approach are not fundamental criticisms and the under- lying assumptions and basic concepts of the seven-functions schema are endorsed.7 In a sense the appearance of the "developmental approach“ testifies to the adequacy of the seven-function schema since there is a division of labor in the two works. Almond's purpose in The Politics of Developing Areas is to explore the problem of categorizing the polity in terms of sets of functions, structures, and styles of action. When a sample of the actions of a number of varied political systems was obtained, a ”step in a probabilistic theory of the polity" was taken. The purpose of the “developmental approach“ is to relate structural and cultural characteristics of political systems to the way in which they have resolved common system development problems. The aspiration behind the reformu- lation is to continue the journey toward a "probabilistic theory“ of the political system. Conceptual Foundation The conceptual foundation for the developmental approach is the same as presented above for the seven-functions approach. The definition of politics and the characteristics of political systems are reiterated. There is, however, one significant change in the identification of the properties of a system. Instead of three 7Criticisms of the seven functional variables are not criticisms of the fundamental purpose." Almond can consistently revise his formulation without compromising his purpose of creating a theory of the political system. 'There are different levels of generality in his theory, and he intends the highest level of generality to be the capabilities level of analysis, for it comes closest to identi- fying and explaining the key categories of political behavior. 145 systemic facets, comprehensiveness, inter-dependence, and boundary, there are two facets, inter-dependence and boundary. The compre- hensive dimension is no longer included.8 The reason for the change is not explicitly stated although the reasoning behind it is clear.9 The idea of comprehension is implicit in the definition of the political system as the “legitimate order-maintaining system" in society. When we speak of the political system there is an implicit reference to all interaction which affects the use of threat of use of legitimate physical coercion. If the distinctive quality of the political system is its special relationship to the legitimate use of force, all structures and all interactions colored with this characteristic would be "political." Hence, the political system is comprehensive. This implication of the definition was not explicitly recognized earlier. It is characteristic of political systems to have limits or boundaries even though the political may pervade society. The boun- daries of the political system that do exist are subject to fluctua- tion fur in different circumstances there are more political acts. It is the occurance of political interactions that constitute the boundaries of the system.‘0 8One of the analytical problems avoided in the reformulation is illustrated in the argument by C. J. Friedrich to explain his reformulation. See Friedrich, "Political Pathology," Political Quarterly. 37 (1966): 71. 9It could be argued that Almond implicitly acknowledges the former existence of a “democratic" assumption in his first formu- lation. He attributes his reformulation to the fact that politi- cal systems "fluctuate" in the development process. Almond and Powell, Comparative Politics, pp. 19-21. 10At one level of analysis, the boundaries of the political system are the boundaries of the society. See Ravi L. Kapil, "On the Conflict Potential of Inherited Boundaries in Africa," World Politics, 18 (1966): 656-59. 146 But the further reason for the minor change in defining system characteristics, illustrated by the “boundary maintenance" problem, is to introduce the concept of levels of analysis.11 The discussion of the functions of the political system expands to include the behavior of the political system as a unit of the social whole and its relation- ship to other social systems as well as the usual internal operations of the political system. The most general level of functional analysis concerns the performance of the political system, its "Capabilities" function.12 Another level of system's function that conditions the performance of the political system is the con- nection between the structures of the political system and the selec- tion of role incumbants. The most specific level of analysis concerns the selection process and the evaluative criteria by which political actors enter the political system, its "Maintenance and Adaptation" function. The third level of analysis is concerned with structures and processes internal to the system. This level of analysis emphasizes the operations of the system as it transforms demands into policies, its "Conversion" function. This level of analysis is essentially that of the functional schema outlined in The Politics of Developing_ Areas. However, it is now expanded by the addition of an explicit nAn extention of Almond's introduction of policy to systemic analysis is found in James N. Rosenau's proposal that "issue areas" be incorporated in systems approaches around the concept of "hori- zontal" and “vertical“ systems boundaries. See Rosenau, "Pre- Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy," in Approaches to Comparative and International Politics, ed., R. Barry Farrell (Evanston, Ill., 1966), pp. 73-75. lelmond and Powell, Comparative Politics, pp. 28-29. Analysis of the more detailed aspects of these categories follows below. 147 category of functional analysis focused on the effect of the outputs of the political system, the relationship between the system, its performance, and its environment. Multi-level functional analysis is the distinctive characteristic of the "developmental approach" that SOphisticates the understanding of the "boundary problem."13 The problem of locating and defining the parameters of the political system must be considered on each of the three levels of functional analysis; the performance. level the personnel level, and the procedural level, to obtain a full understanding. At the maintenance and adaptation level the boundary would be defined by the types of individuals admitted to political office. The boundary at the conversion level would be defined by structural or institutionalized activity; an explication of the implicit defi- nition of boundary in the seven-functions schema. The boundary at the capabilities level of explanation would be determined by the actions resulting from the political process. In schematic terms, the three levels of functional analysis add depth and breadth to the question of boundary maintenance. Whereas formerly the boundary was located in general terms by the institutional framework of the political system, at present it is possible to consider the personnel staffing the institutions as providing the vertical aspect l3It is similar to a refinement of several problems often discussed in studies of political development under the concept of “integration." For example, Myron Weiner, "Political Integration and Political Development," The Study of New Nations, ed., Karl Von Vorys (Philadelphia, 1965), for an assessment of the variety of problems. Although the "capabilities level" of analysis is not discussed, Coleman and Rosberg discuss the problems of political integration and territorial integration in a way similar to Almond and Powell. See James S. Coleman and Carl G. Rosberg, eds., Political Parties and National Integration in Africa (Berkeley, 1964). 148 of the boundary. Knowing the kind of policy formulated and the consequences of such policy is necessary in order to define the horizontal dimension of the political system. The use of the developmental approach to comparative politics begins in a description of the three distinctive levels of func- tional analysis, capabilities, conversions, and maintenance and adaptation.‘4 The three levels of functional activity are measured, classified, and compared by the developmental criteria of structural differentiation, subsystem autonomy, and cultural secularization. The political system is described and analyzed in functional concepts but it is classified and compared by reference to the three develop- mental variables. The framework of systems analysis presented then is both des- criptive and analytical as well as structural-functional and develop- mental. The political system is described by the use of the three levels of functions which suggest a model of the political system. Systems are then classified on the basis of their functional profiles through use of the three related development variables which suggests a typology of political systems. Thus, political systems are classified as "primitive, traditional, or modern" after a description of their 14A good discussion of the context in which the analysis of these levels of analysis occurs is Clifford Geertz, “The Integrative Revolution: Primordial Sentiments and Civil Politics in the New States," in Old Societies and New States: The Quest for_Modernity in Africa and Asia, ed., Cliffbrd Geertz (NewYork, 1963), pp. 105-57. 149 levels of functional behavior is obtained in terms of their struc- tural differentiation, subsystem autonomy, and cultural secularization.15 The first level of functional analysis is the maintenance and adaptation function, the creative transformation through time of the political system.16 The political socialization and recruitment characteristics of the system reflect and condition the process. The specific focus of this level of analysis in the criteria by which incumbents for political roles are selected. The criteria used to select political actors indicates the political culture of the society, the source of the general orientation towards the political system. The assumption behind this level of functional analysis is the inter-dependence of political and social systems, with the political culture presented as the linkage between a part of the society and the general society.17 Broadly put, the pattern of political recruitment depends upon the political culture. The ultimate basis for political recruitment is found in the general culture of which 15In the course of his discussion of systems typologies, Almond indicates dissatisfaction with the typology borrowed from E. A. Shils and used in The Politics of Developing Areas, eds., Gabriel A. Almond and James S.“Coleman (Princeton, 1960); Almond and Powell, Comparative Politics, p. 285. Almond now relies on the typology outlined in Robes? gé Dahl, Modern Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.).1983), PP- ' - l5The primary discussion occurs in the chapter entitled, "Political Structure and Political Culture." Almond and POWEll- Comparative Politics, pp. 42-72. l7Note the relationship Almond and Powell attribute to the political system and the cultural system. The selection properly narrows the focus of analysis from that found in Functional systems and Analogue systems. See Lewis J. Edinger and Donald D. Searing, "Social Background in Elite Analysis: A Methodological Inquiry," American Pulitical Science Review, 61 (1967): 428-45. 150 the political culture is but a part. An examination of the criteria by which political actors are selected leads to an examination of the criteria prevailing in the political culture. Political recruit- ment then is intimately interconnected with socialization. The analysis of political culture derives from the pioneering work done by Almond and Verba in The Civic Culture.18 The appearance of this work after the seven-functions schema was proposed explains much of the subsequent revision and reorientation of the systemic school. Briefly, a political culture is the pattern of orientation or clustering of psychological components that underlies and directs political behavior.19 The quest for a mode of classification to analyze political orientation began in The Civic Culture with the formulation of a tripartate concept: the parochial political culture which manifests little awareness of the political system; the subject political culture which manifests orientation toward the outputs of the political system; and the participant political culture which manifests awareness and orientation toward the input as well as output dimension of the political system.20 A useful model to draw upon for categories of description by which to characterize the salient attitudinal clusters treating different political orientations is found in Parsons' pattern- variable analysis. That is, the sociological categories developed by Parsons are employed to analyze the patterns of orientations 18Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations (Boston, 1966). ' l91oid.. pp. 1-44. 201bid.. pp. 16-20. 151 toward the political system which influence the criteria for selecting and evaluating politica1 actions and actors.21 A parochial political culture characterized by a diffuse, ascriptive, particularistic orientation would favor a standard of recruitment different from a participant political culture characterized by specific, achievement, universalistic orientation. The recruitment criteria must harmonize with the prevailing pattern of orientation established by the sociali- zation process. The patterns of political socialization, through its influence upon the criteria of political recruitment, tend to perpetuate itself through the reciprocal influence of the political system and the general culture. Further, the political system is a factor in the socialization process that affects the pattern of orientation by its effect as a secondary socializing agent.22 To the extent the political actors are successful in maintaining the political system, the socialization process and the general culture is preserved; to the extent the political actors respond to events by innovation and maintain the political system by adopting its structures and functions to meet new contingencies, the general culture is preserved 2lParsons' concepts have been supplemented by different types of political orientation and qualified by emphasis on the socializing effects of the political system. Parsons' concepts are equivilent to Almond and Verba's discussion of "The Divic Culture and Democratic Stability." See ibid., pp. 337-74. See also Lester G. Seligman, "Elite Recruitment and Political Development," The Journal of Politics. 26 (1964): 612-26. 22The addition of this argument overcomes a criticism of Almond's seven-function schema due to the exclusion of leadership, and the effects of leadership, from the model. Robert E. Dowse, "A Functionalist's Logic," World Politics, 18 (1966): 612. 152 in slightly altered form. To the extent the political actors fail to maintain the political system, the socialization process is transformed and the general culture changes.23 The second level of functional analysis is the conversion function, the internal processes that occur within the structural boundaries of the political system.24 This level of functional analysis is focused on the structures and functions involved in translating demands made by the members of society upon the political actors into authoritative actions and other political actions of the system designed to meet various needs of the social system. The classification of the demands made upon the political system reveals four general types, (1) demands for goods and services, (2) demands for the regulation of behavior, (3) demands for participation in making such decisions, and (4) demands for communication and information.25 A parallel type of input consists of supports, the response in kind to the formulation of policy in accordance with the demands. The support inputs are (1) material support, such as 23An excellent study of such a transformation which illustrates the argument is Robert E. Ward, “Political Modernization and Political Culture in Japan,“ World Politics, 15 (1963): 569-96. 24The longest single section of the book is given over to a discussion of the six conversion variables; Almond and Powell, Comparative Politics. PP. 73-189. This is a substantial improve- ment over the unnecessarily brief discussion afforded them earlier in The Politics of Developing Areas,eds., Almond and Coleman. Of the original seven variables, one (socialization and recruitment) is treated separately and the other six are retained; the major discussion remains on interest articulation and aggregation. Almond and Powell. Comparative Politics, pp. 73-128. 25Ibid., pp. 25-26. Easton is clearly the source for the catalog of demands. 153 taxes and service, (2) obedience to law and regulation, (3) parti- cipatory support, and (4) attention to political information and deference for public authority.26 The four classes of transaction on the output side of the process are (l) extractions levied upon the members of the system, (2) regulations of behavior, (3) allocations of benefits and honors, and (4) symbolic output affirming cultural values.27 The conversion function may be analyzed according to the six- fold schema: (l) the formulation of demands, (2) the aggregation of demands, (3) the formulation of authoritative rules, (4) the application and enforcement of rules, (5) the adjudication of rules, and (6) the communication of these activities within the system and between the system and its environment. Due to the familiarity of the functional categories selected by Almond, a discussion of their characteristics is unnecessary; the essential continuity between the seven-function schema and the six-fold Conversion function is self-evident. Almond is able in this volume to support his categories of functional analysis by a variety of empirical research employing his earlier categories. The presentation differs only in length and emphasis with data supplied 25191g,, p. 26. The formal correspondence between the demand and support catalogs is striking; the generality of the categories is also striking. 271bid., p. 27. Again, the formal correspondence in categories is obvious. Consider the criticisms made by Almond of Easton's formulation as, “too close to the generic model of a system" and "the conceptual simplicity of Easton's model . .'. will not carry us very far in our efforts at political comparison." Why does Almond reaffirm the model without acknowledging his earlier misgivings about its use? Gabriel A. Almond, "Introduction: A Functionalist Approach to Compara- tive Politics," in The Politics of Developing Areas, eds., Almond and Coleman, pp. 14-15. 154 to support what he had initially hypothesized. But he does emphasize the governmental aspects more heavily in order to remain consistent with his data. As a result, he is better able to substantiate his claim that the primary politica1 function is indeed the formulation or demands or interest articulation.28 One of the more important generalizations ventured by Almond and Powell is that despite the complex inter-twining of the various conversion functions some basis exists for sorting out the inter- dependency of functional categories and asserting the primacy of the formulation of demands. Whereas the earlier emphasis on interest articulation was criticised, Almond feels the criticism inapplicable. The development of complex and differentiated infra-structures either to control or accommodate new demands is typical not only of "modern” systems, but of all systems. Indeed, Almond asserts that all systems are to some extent "modern."29 Of all the powerful and predictable factors for systems change, change in the socio-economic environment of the political system is most significant. It appears that "certain 28If the data are to be consistent, it must be assumed that there are no fundamental cleavages between elite-mass precluding the articulation and aggregation of demands. See Leonard R. Binder, "National Integration and Political Development," American Political Science Review, 58 (1964): 622-31. 29The "rebuttal" to the criticism of confusing the "modern" and the "democratic" political system is the argument that the process of “modern" systems preceed the forms. See S. N. Eisenstadt, “Initial Patterns Institutional of Political Modernization," in Clagg; E. Welch, Political Modernization (Belmont, Calif., 1967), p. . 155 almost irreversible processes of social and economic change seem to drive political systems along certain very general but discernible paths of change in their structure and culture."30 Despite the wide variation in the individual forms of the response to this engine for change, a general pattern emerges with "remarkable regularity," the creation and growth of interest articulation structures.3l Whenever the forces of technology and communication appear (and where are they absent?), the political engine of change follows in the track. Thus, as economic and technological perspec- tives gain ascendance and institute the process of change, introduce social and cultural concomitants, interest articulation becomes a factor in the political equation.32 The third level of functional analysis is the capabilities function, the macroscopic level of functional analysis focuses on 30Almond and Powell, Comparative Politics, p. 94. Almond also acknowledges the criticisms made by Samuel Huntington in regard to political decay, but maintains change is in practice uni-directional. Only a "worldwide catastrophe, such as a nuclear war, could possibly reverse the progress" (Ibid., p. 94, fn. 18). Samuel 8. Huntington, "Political Development and Political Decay," in Welch, Political Modernization,p. 214. 31A survey of the forms of communications networks existing as part of this structure is less Optimistic. See Richard R. Fagen, Politics and Communications (Boston, 1966), chs. 1-2. 32The reiteration of the importance of the interest articulation and aggregation functions is intended to overcome a second criticism, a normative bias in favor of "liberal democracy." I. L. Horowitz argues such a bias exists in The Politics of Developing_Areas due to its disregard for the Soviet and‘Chinese models of develOpment. Almond extends the scope of the approach to include them but separates them on one dimension of his standard, sub-system autonomy. It remains true, however, that interest articulation functions are especially important. See I. L. Horowitz, "Sociology and Politics: The th of Functionalism Revisited," The Journal of Politics, 25 (1963 : 248-64. Also H. Gordon Skilling,¥“1nterest Groups and Communist Politics," World Politics, 18 (1966): 435-51. 156 the way the political system performs as a unit in its environment.33 To describe the capabilities of the political system is to describe its over-all performance in its environment, domestic and foreign. The addition of this level of analysis to a functional approach to political behavior is: . . . something of an innovation in political theory. The novelty in the capabilities approach lies in our insistence that the problem of what political systems do is one of empirical inquiry.34 The categories used to provide an orderly description of a poli- tical system's perfonnance grow directly from the input-output categories. Because they emerge from the framework of analysis applied to the conversion process of the system there is theoretical inte- gration as well as comparability in a discussion of political trans- actions when either component action or the system itself is subjected to analysis. For example, the same category could be applied to analyze a system output in two ways. At a conversion function level an output would be analyzed as a result of a specified input subjected to certain structures and processes. At a capabilities function level an output would be analyzed to observe how it changes the domestic and international environment and how these changes may affect the flow of inputs into the system. 33Almond and Powell, Comparative Politics. pp. 190-212. The results of this level of analysis are to produce greater precision and establish empirical foundation for normative speculation. 34Ibid.. PP. 191-92. The statement may be rash. It would be necessary to consider the writin s of Harold D. Lasswell (which Almond and Powell do not mention? as having priority in this case. fee Harold D. Lasswell, The Future of Political Science (New York, 963 . 157 The general categories of capabilities are the Extractive, Regulative, Distributive, Symbolic. and Responsive.35 Briefly they refer to, respectively: the performance of the system in obtaining resources, material and human, from its environment; the performance of the system in exercising control over the beha- vior of its members and adjoining units; the performance of the system in allocating goods, services, and honors; the performance of the system in effectively affirming popular values in order to secure its support; and the performance of the system in "giving the people what they want" by relating inputs to outputs. Paradigm and Theory The three levels of functional analysis presented as a develOp- mental approach do not by themselves provide a theory of the political system. Nor do they explain the concept of political development. The three functions analysis is a procedure by which different types of political systems may be analyzed. The result of its use would provide a foundation for a theory; the theory itself, the authors 35Almond and Powell, Comparative Politics, pp. l95-203. Almond is careful to impose categories upon the use of aggregate data since data does not by itself explain. It is still a question whether the present categories have the necessary precision. A general discus- sion of aggregate data on systems performance is found in Austin Ranney, ”The Utility and Limitations of Aggregate Data in the Study of Electoral Behavior,“ Essays on the Behavioral Stud of Politics (Urbana, Ill., 1962), pp. 99-102; Ralph H. Retzlaff, I:The Use of Aggregate Data in Comparative Political Analysis," The Journal of Politics, 27 (1965): 797-817. An insightful analysis of Efie fallacies encountered in the uncritical use of aggregate data is Erwin K. Scheuch, "Cross-national Comparisons Using Aggregate Data: Some Substantive and Methodological Problems,“ Com arin Nations, eds., Rgchard L. Merritt and Stein Rokkan (New Haven, Comm., 1966). PP. 7-67. 158 state, "will consist of the discovery of the relations between these different levels of functioning . . . and the relations of the functions at each level."36 The concept of development which accompanies the three functions analysis has a structural, functional, and cultural dimension. The criteria by which systems development is defined and measured is structural differentiation, sub-system autonomy, and cultural secu- larization. As the theme of development infuses the functional categories of description, its presence permits a functional descrip- tion of a political system to serve as the basis for a broad explana- tion and prediction of systems behavior. The combination of functional analysis and developmental analysis points to a theory of the political system and a theory of the development of political systems. The three functions analysis presents a model of the political system in its categories of poli- tical behavior. The criteria of development presents an explanation and measure of change in political systems. Together, then, a des- cription of the functional characteristics of the political system enables a classification of the system by its “level of development.“37 The further and more important question of mmy.political systems develop begins with the critical problem of survival. The political system is by definition the legitimate, order-maintaining structure in an independent social system. The extreme but minimum political function of any political system is to preserve itself against internal and external challenges. Hence, one of the major reasons for change 36Almond and Powell, Comparative Politics, pp. 30, 314. 37Compare Almond and Powell's analysis of the levels of develop- ment and that in A. F. K. Organski, The Stages of Development (New York, 1965). 159 and development in political systems has its roots in the need for self-preservation. The impetus for development is found in the nature of the political response to challenges raising the question of the survival of the system.38 The problem of explaining why systems develop is not as awesome as it seems on first examination. The scope of the problem is partially reduced when the question is posed as one of systems' survival. It is further reduced when the multitude of kinds of challenges to the existence of political systems are generalized as Almond and Powell demonstrate can be done. The source of the "challenge" to the system is either from without, the designs of a foreign system, or within, the demands made by social groups or opposing elites.39 In either event, the ruling elite is confronted with a situation that requires additional resources or different allocation of existing resources. The problem remains one of responding to challenge significantly affecting the magnitude of the flow of inputs in the political system. The kinds of challenges to a systems' survival that change the magnitude of demands made upon the system, challenges that the 'capabilities of the system, can be generalized as four types of 38Almond appears to extropolate from the argument made by Lucian W. Pye, Politicsg_Personality,pand Nation-Building: Burma's Search for Identity (New Haven, Conn., 1962). Pye remarks: firthe acculturation process tends to reinforce a sense of distrust towards precisely those who would appear to be anxious to help . . . ." (Ibid., p. 139). 39There is some ambiguity as to what constitutes a "challenge," given the selective perception of the actors. See Thomas Hodgkin, "The 'Relevance of 'Western' Ideas for the New African States," in Self-Government in Modernizing Nations, ed., J. Roland Pennock (Engléwood Cliffs, N.J., 1964):'pp. 50-80. 160 problems: the problem of "state-building"; the problem of "nation- building"; the problem of "participation"; and the problem of "distribution".40 The challenge presenting the problem of "state-building" endangers the fundamental survival of the system itself, regardless of its origin, internal or external. The problem can be resolved only by preserving the existing institutions. The condition for the resolution of the problem is increased penetration and integration of the social system by political structures. The problem when it appears challenges the existing structures of the political system and must be met in kind. The structures endangered must be reinforced and extended; the protection of the structures demands the expansion and the elaboration of the structures. This then is a fundamental aspect of development: the successful resolution of a challenge to the structural elements of the political system through the institutionalization of those structures; new roles and new patterns of role interaction signal the survival of the system but it is preservation with a price--that which is preserved is altered.41 40The systemic challenges confronting the political system are roughly parallel the systemic challenges encountered in the course of economic development. W. W. Rostow, The Process of Economic Growth, rev. ed. (New York, 1960); idem, The Stages of Economic Growth (New York, 1960). 4‘eeorge I. Blanksten develops a model of such a system around three basic dimensions: horizontal separation, vertical separation, and value separation. See Blanksten, "International Politics and Foreign Policy in Developing Systems," in A roaches to Comparative and International Politics, ed., Farrell. pP. l20-30. 161 The challenge presented by the problem of "nation-building" is similar to the problem of "state-building" but is primarily a cultural problem rather than a structural problem.42 It is a related, perhaps consequential phenomena, of the structural differentiation and penetration of state-building.43 Nation-building is a form of integration that involves the shifting of loyalties to larger, national political structures. Perhaps the reason for the separate treatment of this dimension of political behavior so closely related to structural development is its connection with the introduction into the political culture of the question: What is the role of the political system in the society?44 It marks the beginning of a process that has lead to the emergence of a pragmatic, empirical orientation characteristic of political attitudes in developed nations. It marks the emergence of a political awareness of the political system as increasing contact between public institutions and private lives occurs.45 The challenge presented by the problem of "participation" occurs within the context extablished by the resolution of the more basic challenges discussed above. The institution and cultural context 42The cultural crises occurs first within the elites according to Harry J. Benda, "Non-Western Intelligentsias as Political Elites," in Political Change in Underdeveloped Countries, ed., J. H. Kautsky (NewYork, 1962). 43A complimentary argument is found in Daniel Lerner, The Passin of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East (New York, I958), and ROBErt D. Hess, "The Socialization Of'Attitudes Toward Political Authority," International Social Science Journal, 15 (1963): 542-59. 44Almond and Powell, Comparative Politics, p. 57. 45A study of the transformation that is required for the estab- lishment of effective institutions is illustrated in a study of ”amoral famialism" in Edward C. Banfield, The Moral Basis of a Backward Society (Glencoe, Ill., 1958). 162 affects both the origin and nature of the demands for a share in determining policy arising within the society. If demands are made for different policies, and the demands are to be incorporated into the functional process of the system, then further differentiation in the political structures must occur. The acceptance of the demand by the system results in a change in the patterns of inter- action towards greater diversity among the components of the system.46 The response will take the form of additional substructures in the political system, the creation of a political infrastructure. The significance of the infrastructure, however, depends on its autbnomy from the centralized politica1 structures. The last form of challenge presented by the authors is the problem of "distribution.' This problem occurs in terms of political priority in the context of the resolution of the preceding challenges. Changes in the structure, function, and cultural context of the political system generated by the above challenges will significantly affect the nature and magnitude of demands made upon the political system as it distributes goods, services, and honors. The "logic of development" perceived by the authors of the developmental approach attempts to explain why and how political systems change.47 The pattern of change found in political systems appears in the context of the impact of general sociological, 46An extensive study of the growth of participatory infra- structures is Edward A. Shils, Political Development in the New States (The Hague, 1960), p. 30. 47Almond and Powell, Comparative Politics, pp. 299-310. There is an essential similarity—between Almond and Powell and the construct of "epigenesis" developed by Amitai Etzioni, Studies in Social Changg_ (New York, 1966). Etzioni, however, argues there is a conflict in the differentiation concept (which Almond and Powell use) and the capabilities analysis. 163 technological innovations. The salient aspects of the impact are categorized in the four forms of challenges or problems confronting the political system. The preservation of the system requires a general success in resolving the problems. To the extent the system is maintained, that is, to the extent the capabilities of the poli- tical system increase, structural differentiation, sub-system autonomy, and cultural secularization occurs. Summary l The formulation of a specific-performance system has occured ' in two distinct stages, the seven-functions schema found in Ihg_ 1P: r“'—-;_ Politics of Developing_Areas and the three-functions model found in Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach. The two variations of the approach remain distinct, yet there is common basis for their existence. The purpose of the proposal that yields the seven-functions schema is to provide a comparative basis for the analysis of two types of political systems. The first goal to reach in order to fulfill this purpose is identify comparable categories of political behavior discernible in empirical research in the most divergent forms of political action. The seven-functions schema attempts to present such categories of political action as will enable a com- parison of "developed“ and "developing" systems. Their presentation is the first although partial step in the construction of a compara- tive comparative politics. The schema remains an essential tool for the description and comparison of certain types of systems. A similar purpose directs the three-functions model of poli- tica1 analysis but added to the purpose is the goal of explaining 164 change in political systems. To the goal of establishing compara- tive political analysis is added the goal of explaining the dynamics of political systems.48 The developmental emphasis in the three- functions model elaborates and expands upon the seven-functions model in an attempt to clarify the nature of the continuum which underlies the comparison of political systems. The presentation of the model is the beginning for an explanation of why political systems differ. The importance of the three-functions model inheres in its attempt to provide a theory of politics based on comparative analysis.49 Both formulations of a specific-performance system share in the project of developing a systemic comparative politics and differ in their contributions to that conmon enterprise. The seven-functions schema is a functional model of a political system defined as the “legitimate order-maintaining system," specifically designed to compare two unlike types of political systems, a “developed" and an "undeveloped" system. The three-functions model is a model of 48A significant addition to systemic theory is provided by Almond and Powell in this respect: it is possible to systematically construct a longitudinal study of a political system. Even accepting the “static” charge levied against the seven-functional model, an analytic construct is obtained by which to measure the variations from that model in the system's history as well as predict, on the basis of probability, the likely alternative outcomes. 49Despite the criticisms made of Almond's efforts by Meehan, he would be forced to admit that Almond has accomplished one task for the comparative study of political systems. Namely, he makes a serious attempt to go beyond comparison and present an explana- tion. See Eugene J. Meehan, Contempprary Political Thought: A Critical Study_(Homewood, Ill.I—l967), p. 186. 165 functional development in a political system defined as the legiti- mate arbitrator of an everchanging order, designed to compare levels of political behavior.50 So the concept of specific-performance systems dominates the comparative study of politics not only because of its theoretical origins in political theory. Its initial advantage to political scientists desirous of a scientific and systematic mode of inquiry into their traditional field of inquiry may explain its comprehen- sion and utility, as well as shed some light on the reasons for its popularity, but it doesn't explain the reason for its continued ascendancy. There are alternative approaches to a systems analysis available to political scientists but are less often used and no less scientific. In fact, there is some reason to suppose the scientific merits of the Functional systems approach and the Analogue systems approach outweigh the formal claims made by the Specific systems approach. The accessibility and familiarity of studying the political system in the framework proposed by a political scientist cannot wholly explain its significance. Its acceptance depends also on its utility and its applicability. In conclusion, the systemic approach favored by Almond variously emphasizes the characteristics of the political system, environmental conditions, and the effect of particular components of the political 50The basic similarity in the two conceptualizations is seen as a continuing deficiency by James N. Rosenau. He criticises Almond fur his tacit assumption of systems as closed or autonomous systems. Almond retains a "rigid national-international distinction" precluding its transition to something other than a national system. See Rosenau, "Pre-Theories and Theories," in Approaches to Comparative and International Politics, ed., Farrell, pp. 58-59. 166 system. The question of identifying the inter-relationships holding between the facets of political behavior depend upon the particular system and its circumstance. An interesting consideration raised by Almond at the conclusion of the presentation of the developmental approach might be the basis for exploring the inter-relationships between dimensions of political behavior: What happens when there is no viable political system with the structural framework of the state and cultural properties of the nation?51 The statement makes it possible to consider one of the major criticisms levied against the seven-functions schema: Does the analysis assume the existence of a viable political system, even if it is a "primitive“ political system? Perhaps an examination of the primary political actions whose goal is to establish a struc- tural framework and a supportive cultural mileu would clarify the relationships between maintenance and adaptation, conversion, and capabilities functions. What does the "developmental" process refer to as the primary factor in the establishment of a political system? 5‘The question raises a long-standing criticism of functionalism: how can variables of purposive and planned innovation be incorporated? Ernest Nagel asks: "functional statements are regarded as appropriate in connection with systems possessing self-maintaining mechanisms for certain of their traits, but seem pointless and lacking when used with reference to systems lacking such self-regulating devices" (Logic Without Metaphysics and Other Essays in the Philosophypof Science, ed., Ernest A. Nagel {New York, 1959], pp. 251-52). CHAPTER VII PROBLEM-SOLVING SYSTEMS . Heurestic Concepts To obtain a clearer conception of the state of the field of ”Tl comparative politica1 study an analysis of its cutting edge, systems J theory, has been shown to be the first priority.1 An analysis of JTK. 'i the major research instrument requires also an analysis of the results obtained in wielding the instrument. And it is clear that the field of operation best illustrating the keeness of the instru- ment in dissecting political life is the study of new nations. Yet, clarity can be gained on the subject of systems analysis only through concentration on the heart of the operation, the study of the political development of those new nations. The study of socio-political changes and modernization forms the general focus for comparative political analysis of new nations. Even when the examination of the study is so narrowed to select development and modernization as the themes, there is an almost bewildering array of approaches found among the various schools of thought and even shifts in emphasis between authors using the same general approach.2 Behind the array, however, appears an lAlbert Somit and Joseph Tannenhaus, “Trends in American Political Science," American Political Science Review, 57 (1963): 933-47. ‘ ' ' zRobert A. Packingham, "Approaches to the Study of Political Development," World Politics, 17 (1964): 108-20. 167 168 emerging consensus that some form of systems approach is the more fruitful analytical approach.3 The ground from which the systemic study of political develop- ment springs was explored and cleared by traditional political science which attempted to apply some furm of institutional analysis and resident observers who attempted to generalize from their knowledge of the character of the people and their way of life comprehended by practical experience. The fbrtuitous events of the 19405 forced a marriage of convenience between these two approaches that struggled to bring forth fruit. Their seed planted in political fertile soil produced a mutant which bore only slight resemblance to the intended offspring. The union was not harmonious, to say the least, when the apparent ancestry was questioned. The differences between the traditional political science approach and the traditional area studies approach were great enough to prevent the merger.4 Hence, the study of political developments remained in a state of preliminary development until the conception of the scientific approach produced new growth. A reconceptualization was widely recognized as a critical element in the development of a 3There is a correspondence between the typology we have used and that used by two senior authors of the field in a recent analysis of trends in the study of new nations. Apter and Andrain identify a Normative, a Structural, and a Behavioral analytic framework where we have used Specific-performance, Analogue, and Functional Systems analytic frameworks. 'Charles Andrain and David E. Apter, ”Comparative Government: Developing New Nations,“ The Journal of Politics, 30 (1968): 372-416. * ' 4The “language and literature pe0p1e“ or specialists in "over- seasmanship" conflicted with the ”cautious public administration people" or traditional political scientists because of their lack of communication and resulting failure to learn from one another; the resident specialists rushed in where more cautious political scientists feared to tread. Leonard Binder, Iran: Political Develop: ment in a Changing Society (Berkeley, 1962), pp. 4-5. 169 scientific approach to politics although few agreed as to its precise meaning. Associated with the scientific revision was a recognition of the need for empirical data. The problem was not materially reduced, though, due to the fact the two trends toward science were partially antagonistic: was the framework of analysis created prior to the collection of data or did the collection of data proceed and produce a framework? Was the element needed to overcome the defi- '91 cience stunting the growth of an understanding of political develop- i l ment theory or data? 5 The preliminary studies of political development based on a % systems analysis of new nations defined the concept of system as 2 a problem-solving device. The concept of political "system" to which reference was made for pupposes of comparing developing systems with the political systems of more developed nations meant nothing more than a general inter-dependence among socio-political variables.5 The definition of political system implied neither specific nor implicit functions, nor objectively recognizable structures. The minimum condition necessary to justify the identi- fication of a systemic connection was an indirect connection between a given action and the observed reaction. Causality was attributed to the ”system" on the basis of a probable relationship between action and a removed response to the action. The justification for this use of systems analysis that refers to nothing more than vague, general patterns of action is its heurestic value. It is a way to approach the problem of political development using an already proven approach even though it requires 5Peter Nettl, "The Concept of System in Political Science." Political Studies, 14 (1966): 305-38. 170 the marginal use of general systems theory in a manner yielding marginal utility. But it was an introduction of an approach that promised to produce unity and comprehension for comparative political study. The hypothesis of system once applied proved to be more than speculation. The assumption of systemic inter-dependence was justified, and, once this was realized, the question was: What is the political system? Ffii Conceptual Boundaries The results of the preliminary exploration of the problem were presented in the form of another question: Is there, or is i there not, a “non-Western" political process?6 Surely there was 3- no doubt as to the literal answer to the question. Yet the literal answer proved to have lengthy implications. To assert the obvious was to describe the rapid change and explosive situation prevailing in the region known as the "Third World." Yet it was also obvious that the difference between patterns of political behavior existing before World War II produced a surprising similarity in the patterns of behavior found in the non-Western world. All new nations collec- tively seemed to present a general pattern of political response that argued for the assertion of a definite pattern of political behavior. It was a truly distinctive political process not found in analogous form in the Western political process. The traditions of the peoples and their present turmoil were unique as far as the Western George M. Kahin, Guy J. Pauker. and Lucian W. Pye, "Comparative Politics of the Non-Western Countries," American Political Science‘ ' Review, 49 (1955): 1022-41; Lucian W. Pye,'"ThelNon-Western Political Process,‘I The Journal of‘Politics, 20 (1958): 468-86; Alfred Diament, "Is There a Non-Western Political Process?“ The Journal of Politics, 21 (1959): 123-27. 171 nations were concerned, and, perhaps the futures of these new poli- tical systems would be unique too since their reaction to the introduction of Western institutions and practices would differ. Any single new nation considered separately presented a confused and complex picture of political structures, cultural practices, and political processes. The specific conditions found in each country differed. But on closer examination the influence of "tradition" did not seem quite so distinct or uniform.7 The tradition of village rule in Asia was different from the tradition of tribal rule in Africa in terms of their political consequences for the task of nation-building. The tradition of racial diversity in Asia was different from the tradition of racial homogeneity in Africa in terms of their political consequences for the task of national integration. The specific problems salient for each political system seemed to change from new nation to new nation.8 While all may be said to labor under a shortage of investment capital and, consequently, face together the problem of creating an adequate and self-sustaining 7William J. Hanna writes, "Predominant identification with one 's own ethnic group, accompanied by hostility to out-groups, appears to have increased in some African states since independence" (Indepen- dent Black Africa: The Politics of Freedom, ed., Hanna [Chicago, ,p. av1 pter, *The Role of Traditionalism in the Political Modernization of Ghana and Uganda,“ World Politics, 12 (1960): 45- 68; Gwendolen M. Carter, Five African States: *Response to Diversity (Ithaca, N. Y. 1963). 8"In every recorded modern instance, politica1 develOpment and especially the develOpment of awareness of the possibilities of politics preceded modernization and the social changes accompanying it“ ' (Herbert J. Spiro, "An Evaluation of Systems Theory," Contem orar Political Analysis, ed. ., James C. Charlesworth [New York, I9E7I, p. 160). Also Wilfred Malenbaum, "Economic Factors and Political Development, ” New Nations: The Problem of Political Develdpment, ed., Karl Von Vorys (Philadelphia, 1965), pp. 41-51. 172 economy, the political differences produce conflicting interpretations of what is the actual problem of economic development. Was it the primary need for land reform and modern agriculture or was it the need for heavy industrialization and production of arms? Was the peasant to bear the burden of development or was he to be the immediate beneficiary? Was the trader and merchant to be favored by the develop- ment of secondary, private economic activity or was the state to create its own mode of production? The problems of the sort introduced above seemed to differ in nature and meaning for the individual nations. Yet the future of the new nations seemed to lie not in a unique solution to such specific problems but in adopting one of the two prevailing solu- tions found already existing in the West. The political processes found in the "non-Western" world could be said to confront the same political problems confronting the West. So, on this assumption, there was no unique "non-Western" political process, no unique political problems they were forced to deal with that had not already been dealt with, and there was no unique solution except to follow the trends of the West. The final answer to the question of the nature of political activity in the new nations is yet to be produced by modern social science. The significance of the dispute has already been impressed upon a comparative political science. Overwhelmed by the sudden increase in political activity in formerly politically quiescient territories, how can this data be analyzed? To treat the political activity found in new nations as distinct and separate is to 173 compartmentalize the comparative study of politics.9 The acceptance of a theoretical distinction of the sort implied by the term “non- Western" implies the segmentation of the study of politics. Hence there is no real significance in the concept of studying political development since there are two realms of political behavior, the established and the traditional, and the modern and developing, each of which exists within boundaries excluding the other. The result of such a theoretical distinction is a practical isolation that produces no “new horizons" for comparative political study. The students of "old Nations" are doomed to wonder whether their approach is inherently parochial, hence alienated from general knowledge of political things. The students of “new nations" are doomed to wander in an unfamiliar wilderness. To refuse the distinction implied in the concept of Roon- Western" and assert the essentially analogous character of political systems provides the basis for a comparative political science.10 The fundamental unity of the study is not lessened in the recognition of a plurality in the manifestation of political behavior. While there is no segmentation of political systems and political processes, genera1 comparisons can still be made between established and emerging systems. The relevance of understanding the political processes found in the West can be re-affirmed as relevant for understanding “non-Western" 9Dankwart Rustow, "New Horizons for Comparative Politics," World Politics. 9 (1957): 530-49. 1Odohn H. Kautsky. "Introduction," Political Change in Under- Developed Countries: Nationalism and Communism, ed., Johan. Kautsky, (New York, 1962), pp. 4-11. 174 political systems, especially when the discontinuities and dissimilarities within the Western political process are appreciated. It would be hasty to conclude the argument concerning the theo- retical framework that ought to guide the study of political development by simply re-affirming the general laws of political behavior constructed through the study of developed nations and applying them to the very different context found in developing nations. The study of political development remains under-developed despite the foundation provided by systems theory for a comparative study of different political systems. There remains yet a wide gap between the state of knowledge of Western and non-Western political processes. The kinds of oriengation that result from the too easy acceptance of the notion of a basic similarity between all political systems and an explanation of political development is a deficient understanding of the basis for comparison. It is not uncommon to find the term "under-developed" applied to political systems in the course of an analysis of political development.11 The basis for using the term is the same as the basis for the analysis of the subject: it is the assumption of a “gap" between what is in established social systems and what is lacking in other, new systems. The approach taken by "gap theorists" to the study of political development is to describe the differences between a given analytic model of the political system and an actual empirical political system.12 Common "gaps" said to exist in new nations are those such as the 11The phrase is from Ann Ruth Willner, "The Underdeveloped Study of Political Development,” World Politics, 16 (1964): 468-82. The taxomony develOped by her is applied below. ‘ 12"The political process in transitional societies must reflect the basic bifurcated nature of such societies, with their divisions a- I i i. .‘m fl 174 political systems, especially when the discontinuities and dissimilarities within the Western political process are appreciated. It would be hasty to conclude the argument concerning the theo- retical framework that ought to guide the study of political development by simply re-affirming the general laws of political behavior constructed through the study of developed nations and applying them to the very different context found in developing nations. The study of political development remains under-developed despite the foundation provided by systems theory for a comparative study of different political systems. There remains yet a wide gap between the state of knowledge of Western and non-Western political processes. The kinds of oriengation that result from the too easy acceptance of the notion of a basic similarity between all political systems and an explanation of political development is a deficient understanding of the basis for comparison. It is not uncommon to find the term ”under-developed” applied to political systems in the course of an analysis of political development.11 The basis for using the term is the same as the basis for the analysis of the subject: it is the assumption of a "gap" between what is in established social systems and what is lacking in other, new systems. The approach taken by "gap theorists" to the study of political development is to describe the differences between a given analytic model of the political system and an actual empirical political system.12 Common "gaps" said to exist in new nations are those such as the lllhe phrase is from Ann Ruth Willner, "The Underdeveloped Study of Political Development," World Politics, 16 (1964): 468-82. The taxomony developed by her is applied below. 12"The political process in transitional societies must reflect the basic bifurcated nature of such societies, with their divisions 175 distinctions between “town and country," "urban and rural," “elite and mass," "mental and manual labor." The description leads to, or is based upon, the question: If the condition of modernization or political development does not exist, then what elements of moderni- zation or political development are missing? The gaps, whatever they may be, are deficiencies in the political system that reveal the absence of something the creation of which will produce the condition of modernization or development. A corollary to the “gap" approach to political development is found in some versions of a "requisite function" mode of analysis.13 In a similar fashion, a list of conditions necessary for the perfor- mance of an analytic model of the political system is constructed from which the definition of development is abstracted. The neces- sary condition for the performance of specified functions is requi- site for the performance of the political system, efficient and effective performance. The trend in political systems is toward more efficient performance of the specified functions. The obstacle between those who are modernized, better acculturated, more Westernized, more urbanized, and those who still cling to the traditional patterns . . . . In transitional societies, however, the gap is particularly large . . .“ (Max F. Millikan and Donald L. M. Blackmer, The Eme in Nations [Boston, 1961], p. 71). Also Edward A. Shils, Political Davelppment in the New States (The Hague, 1962). l3"Neither we [developed nations] nor they [developing nations] have a real alternative to trying to carry out modernization. We are not going to be able to modernize primarily in terms of the traditional patterns of the societies concerned or to preserve those patterns to any considerable extent. As time goes on they will come increasingly to resemble one another . . . because the patterns of modernization are such that the more highly modernized societies become, the more they resemble one another" (Marion J. Levy, "Patterns (Structures) of Modernization and Political Development,“ New Nations, ed., Van Vorys, p. 41)) 176 to political development is absence of or inefficiency in performing the "requisite functions." The response to the trend that leads to political development is the creation of certain “requisite functions." Both the "gap" approach and the "requisite functions" approach to the study of political development hinder genuine comparative study of political processes as they exist in new nations. This occurs despite their providing data to describe the extent and kind of differences between a selected definition of political develop- ment and an empirical system. One of the deficiencies of these approaches is a subtle ethnocentrism which denigrates the actual structures and functions of the new system. The "gap" approach tends toward a condemnation of the "inertia of tradition“ or most of that which had been and still exists. It is the legacy of the past that prevents the appearance in the context of the new nation of that which is favored by the outside observer.) The "requisite function" approach suffers from the same implicit ethnocentrism as well as being tautologous. The desiderata of development are those elements already defined as absent. The analysis of non-Western political systems drawing wholly and uncritically upon judgments made of the Western political development as that of creating political systems identical to the one with which they are most familiar.‘4 Developing systems are judged not as different in certain specified factors but as deficient 14An analysis of some of the fallacies found in approaches to development, with an excellant summary of the literature, is found in Alfred Diament, "Political Development: Approaches to Theory and Strategy," in Approaches to Development: Politics, Administration, angGChan e,]§dz., John 0. Montgomery and William J. Siffen (New York, l9 1, pp. - 8. 177 because they are different. That which makes them political systems by virtue of their being "legitimate, order-maintaining systems," makes them at the same time "under-developed" political systems. The condition of development is a consequence of similarity; a condi- tion, when viewed in the nationalist perspective, of political decline, not to say extinction. The search for a concept of development to bridge the study of different types of political systems in such a way as to render F1 comparison possible lead to a reconsideration of the prevailing concepts traditionally used for this purpose. What was needed was a general and scientific concept; but befbre the need was widely recognized certain conventional answers to the question, "What is development?" had to be reconsidered. And the first round of reconsiderations was partial, as we have shown. The study of comp- arative politics had to experience its own ground clearing operation before the scientific approach, in the fbrm of systems analysis, was accepted. In order to clarify the magnitude of the problem involved, consider the obstacles to be removed. To the extent the question of political development was considered by traditional political science, it was treated as a question of either legal-institutional development or administrative development.15 Common to both approaches was a definition that was essentially historical. descriptive, and formal . ISPPCKthma “Approaches to the Study of Political Development," World Politics: 112-16. « . . , , 178 The legal-institutional approach to the study of political development treated the subject of political change as a function of the legality and constitutional framework surrounding the opera- tion of major social institutions.16 The formal literature expressing this approach was prone to emphasize political themes found in the basic constitutional documents of Western democracies, such as equality before the law, periodic elections, secret ballots, and separation of powers. Political development was more a normative than analytic concept. The emphasis on law and institutions included an ethical imperitive that included within the notion of development a normative standard. The use of law as a standard of development entailed a demand for the limitation of political activity, a limitation obligatory for all that mixed sociological fact with ethical imperitive. The administrative approach to the concept of political develop- ment was similar to the legal-institutional approach.17 Development was identified by the capacity of the government to maintain effective order and efficient stability. And in the absence of an established constitution, the next best alternative was the institution of a Western-type bureaucracy to perform the functions of government in a rational and neutral manner. The literature usually expressing l6Harry Eckstein, "Constitutional Engineering and the Problem of Viable Representative Government," Comparative Politics: A Reader, eds., Harry Eckstein and David E. Apter (New York, 1963). pP. 97-103. 17James Heaphy, "The Organization of Egypt: Inadequacies of a Non-Political Model for Nation-Building," World Politics, 18 (1966): 177-93. Both in theory and practice the creation of a "political community“ is excluded; instead a general antipathy for the political exists and a preference for centrally organized, manipulated asso- ciations prevails. TiZTJH—IT’W ‘—'_'7l ..‘ 179 this approach has its roots in the writings and prescriptions of colonial administrators. The approach was a special variant of the legal-institutional approach adopted by explaining the category of "transitional“ systems; colonial status, signified by the presence of a Civil Service, was the intermediate step between “primitive" society and "developed" society. The definition of political development as legal or admini- E. strative development as it is found in traditional political science 1 approaches reveals a subtle deterministic bias in its evolutionary concept.18 The political system is a creature of its past. The significant aspect of society was the gradual development of a tradi- "Htl' . tion of the "rule of law." The culmination of the growth of a society was the creation of a constitution generally accepted as superior to all political forces. The traditional focus on law as the measure of development actually made the political system the product of "tradition,” which was the source of law. Development was the result of an organic growth that increased acceptance of a normative principle. Summary When the inadequacies of analyzing political development in new nations by evolutionary, legalistic, and normative criteria of systems' characteristics drawn from "developed" Western nations were realized, alternative approaches to formulating the “fundamentals" of politics appeared. And it is within the body of literature on the subject of political development produced during the "second round“ 18Glenn D. Paige, "The Rediscovery of Politics," in Approaches to Development, eds., Montgomery and Siffen, pp. 49-51. . 1::- a w- J 180 of comparative studies that a systems approach appears. The analytical method by which the search for fundamental similarities between Western and non-Western political systems now occurs, a distinction that broadly refers to the geography and not the ethics of the study, is drawn from the scientific dimension of political science. The use of problem-solving system has contributed to the development of systemic theory as well as the scientific advancement of political science. The contribution has been direct and indirect. As Binder rfil points out, the traditional division of labor in the study of foreign political systems tended to produce theory without facts and facts without theory.19 The introduction of systemic theory in the form of a problem-solving approach was a way to bridge the gulf and permit a new beginning. The use of an alternative mode of analysis that was in principle replicable permitted a bench-mark by which to judge the merits of other modes of study. The indirect consequences of applying a new and scientific approach was to bring to the attention of scholars already working in the area of foreign political systems the assumptions and hypo- thesis they used. The introduction of a new approach, neither institutional nor monographic, forced a consideration of the justi- fication for existing approaches. To the extent early attempts to apply systems theory to the study of new nations intruded upon scholars already working in the area with other methods, criticism, defense, and re-evaluation were required. Even though systemic explanations of political actions in the new nations at first were explanations in name only, the attempt lgBinder, Iran, p. 5. 181 served a definite heuristic purpose. An explanation for the partial success of system analysis in the form of problem-solving approach is found in the critique by Robert Brown: . . . This is because their developed use requires that a number of rather stringent conditions be met, and social scientists are seldom in a position to do so. They are, however, often able to make use of functional statements to construct an un- developed form of explanation whose usefulness nevertheless is considerable. When an investigator has reason to believe that some sort of self- persisting system is present, he can employ a ”E crude type of functional explanation as a stop- 2 gap. He can use it to summarize his formulation, to indicate the relative importance of the various causal factors, and to refer obliquely to possible laws. His hope, of course, is that later he will be able to replace this primitive explanation by one in which the set of laws that describe the working of the system are made explicit . . . .20 The result of the expansion of the frontiers of the field of comparative politics produced both an awareness of deficiencies in the traditional study of foreign political systems and of incomplete- ness in the scientific study of the political process. The field of comparative politics was touched by the scientific revolution in the study of politics at a late date but rapid strides have been made. At present, the field of comparative politics appears to be disappearing as a separate field of study in the discipline; and, if it is disappearing, its demise is a result of its success.21 20Robert R. Brown, Explanation in Social Science (London, 1963). p. 132. ' ‘ ‘ ‘ 2lGabriel A. Almond, "Political Theory and Political Science." Contem ora Political Science: Toward Empirical Theory, ed., Ithiel 80300 ew 0r,9‘6t,pp,‘6-7. -. t . , 182 The application of process studies, whose development was pioneered in the study of American politics, to comparative politics introduced a scientific orientation that subsequently produced the systemic study of foreign political systems. Theories and methods of comparison have been more sophisticated and more widely used in comparative studies of new nations than in other branches of political science. As a result, there is now a cross-fertilization occuring between the ~, study of developing political systems and the study of developed, F.i especially the study of the American, political systems. IWJJ fl-J‘ t... $5“me hob-J CHAPTER VIII A SYSTEMIC OVERVIEW The Utility of Systems Theory Having completed an analysis of the various systematic approaches p1i to the study of political behavior, an overview of systems theory is possible.1 There is a general agreement emerging within social 4. science that the more fruitful analytical framework for the compara- tive study of social action lies in the field of systems theory. But in order to understand the nature of the discussion occuring in the field of systems theory--both in its theoretical and practical dimensions-~it is necessary to keep in mind the comparative utilities of the different systemic approaches. We have seen the principles and details of various scientific orientations informing political research that constitute a systems approach. A critical examination of the influential theoretical statements permits the abstraction of the classification, Functional 1The study began by considering the question raised in the volume, Contemporary Political Science: Toward Empirical Theory, ed., Ithiel desola Pool lNew York, 1967). The call for a critical evaluation is similar to the challenge posed by Christian Bay, “Politics and Pseudo- Politics: A Critical Evaluation of Some Behavioral Literature," American Political Science Review, 59 (1965): 39-51. In order to evaluate the explanatory power of systemic explanations, it is neces- sary to order the conceptual models by their "problem relevance," or, to ask what are the patterns of implicit values of the models, as sug- gested by Oliver Benson,"Challenges for Research in International Rela- tions and Comparative Politics,“ in Approaches to Comparative and International Politics, ed., R. Barry Farrell (Evanston, Ill., l966), pp. 358-58. 183 184 Systems, Analogue Systems, Specific-Performance Systems, and Problem- Solving Systems. The abstractions which permit this classification of systems theory are best understood as identifications of "ideal types." The basis fbr the abstraction and construction of the "ideal types" is the various and differing emphasis placed on particular features of social interaction in the works of such theorists as Parsons, Easton, and Almond. Discussion of the different aspects Fa of systemic approaches yields an identification of the systemic enterprise. 1 There is a basic agreement in all systemic approaches concerning the general variables to be used in systems analysis despite the different emphasis on and use of those variables. The reliability and validity of the theoretical categories are sufficiently known despite the difficulty of using those categories in empirical research. Due to the difficulty, general systems theory as applied in compara- tive political research appears obligated for theoretical and prac- tical reasons to accommodate the varying emphases on different social phenomena. It could be argued that the prevailing particular divi- sion of general systems theory is justified by theoretical and practical criteria for reasons of comparative utility. To the extent there is a difference in the use of systems concepts recourse must be had to a common measure to weigh and balance the competing theoretical claims. The standard accepted and appropriate to sort out the claims is the standard of utility rather than the truth or falsity of the framework. Accepting as the purpose of the scientific orientation in the study of poli- tical behavior explanation and prediction, predicated upon accurate 185 description, the yardstick by which to evaluate different systemic approaches is their usefulness in describing and comparing political systems.2 One of the reasons for the different forms of systems analysis such as we have examined is the selective emphasis not only on dif- ferent aspects of society but also on different types of systems, i.e., analytical and empirical systems. The concept of "system" has a different referent in the frameworks we have examined, ranging from a strictly formal concept in a Functional systems analysis to a loose interconnection of empirical events in a Problem-solving analysis. The referent of the concept "system“ exists somewhere on a continuum whose extremes are an existing empirical political system and a purely analytic conceptualization of a social system. It is necessary to consider the position on the continuum of systems' referent, a position determined by the way in which analytical and concrete systems are used within the framework to explore their utilities.3 A Functional system is primarily concerned with identifying 2Eugene J. Meehan argues persuasively for an operational criteria of utility to include an evaluation of the paradigm's power to predict. Meehan, Explanation in Social Science: A System Paradi m (Homewood, Ill., 196871 It mightbe possible to apply a capa 1 ities" analysis to systems theory in much the same way Almond and Powell apply it to measure the performance of political systems. It would be interesting to consider the model of incremental evaluation presented by David Braybrooke and Charles E. Lindbloom, A Strategy of Decision: Policy Evaluation as a Social Process (New York, 1963). 3The analytic-concrete distinction is used here as it is presented by Marion J. Levy, The Structure of Society (Princeton. 1952), pp. 88-89, and idem, Modernization and the Structure of Society (Princeton, 1966), pp. 20:26. ‘ ' 186 the properties and values of analytic systems; and, as such, it defines the theoretical parameters of the continuum. Its opera- tionalization requires the formulation of "supra-system“ in order to relate concrete systems and the properties of the analytic system. An Analogue system incorporates both analytical and concrete conceptualizations of systems for its referent. The incorpora- tion, however, occurs by the compression of both systems types in L a horizontal rather than a vertical manner, as was done above. I .‘ A Specific-performance system similarly incorporates both analy- tical and concrete systems types for its referent, but it is dis- 2}“ tinguished from an Analogue system by its heavier reliance on the concrete system. A Problem-solving system relies almost wholly on concrete systems and makes only preliminary and partial state- ments of the properties of an analytic system; as such, it defines the empirical parameters of the continuum. V All four formulations based as they are on different concep- tualizations of types of systems contribute in their own ways to the comparative study of political systems. Each of the formu- lations has a unique comparative advantage. The types of compa- rison that a developed comparative political science should be able to make, it has been argued, are: (l) The comparison of one system through time; (2) The comparison of one system with another system of the same type; (3) The comparison of one system with one or several related systems, within or without the context of a “supra-system"; (4) The comparison of one scientific type of system with another scientific type of system.4 The state of development 4The range of comparisons is suggested by Peter Nettl, “The Concept of System in Political Science," Political Studies, 14 (1966): 305-38. 187 in systems theory is such that at the moment not all four types of comparison are within its abilities. At the present time, the greatest success has been in comparing one type of system with another, e.g., the comparative study of different modern systems. The least success has been in comparing the phases of one system through time; but this deficiency is mainly a function of the recency of the systems approach rather than theoretical problems.5 Substantial success has occurred in comparing sub-systems. Advances in the ability to compare one scientific type of system with another are perhaps the most significant, and, further advances are to be expected. The focus of attention on the study of new nations, the comparison of developed and developing systems, will be the arena in which a truly comparative science of social systems emerges. The Functional systems approach is well suited for the comparison of one system with another of the same type. It is also suited for comparing one system with related systems at either the macro- systems level of analysis or the sub-systems level of analysis. The Analogue system also is suitable for this type of sub-systems analysis across system boundaries. The Specific-performance systems approach is suited for all types of comparative study although it is best suited for comparing one system type with similar or different system types and longitudinal comparison. In principle, it is uniquely able to compare a system through time. 5Initial success of applying modern theory to old fields of study holds the promise of greater dividends. A speculative approach to the study of development that is useful is O. Mannoni, Pros ero and Caliban: The P§ychology of Colonization (New York, 1956). More rigorous studies of this type are S. M. Lipset, The First New Nation (New York, 1963), and Kenneth N. Waltz, Man,_The State, and War: A 188 The theoretical differences among the four kinds of systems approaches from which derive the practical differences in their usefulness in comparative politica1 analysis are a function of the incorporation of concrete supra-systems and abstract social systems.6 The critical criterion for the use of any of the systems concepts is the assumption of the necessity of certain functions for the existence of social systems. The identification of the functional requirements of social life requires the intensification of the empirical dimension of comparative political science while at the same time description of the process of interaction requires the intensification of the theoretical dimension of comparative political science. The further advancement of comparative politica1 analysis is served by the synthesis of the prevailing fbrms of systems analysis guided by an appreciation of the respective merits of the various approaches. The theme of political development could usefully continue to predominate the concerns of systems analysis in order to facilitate the synthesis. The study of new nations provides a rigorous test of the explanatory powers of systemic theory, forces Theoretical Analysis (New York, 1959). 6David C. McClelland identifies as an element in the abstract conceptualization of social systems. ” . . . for a century we [social scientists] have been dominated by Social Darwinism, by the implicit or explicit notion that man is a creature of his environment, whether natural or social . . . Practically all social scientists in the past several generations have begun with society and tried to create man in its image“ (McClelland, The Achieveing Society [Princeton, 1951]. p 391). 189 greater clarity in the vocabulary of systems theory, and demands more attention in the empirical use of the concepts.7 There is a growing body of literature devoted to rethinking some of the concepts, concepts such as "modernization,“ originated in the systemic study of social systems.8 Each of the approaches examined above stresses different criteria in order to compile a standard of "modern" social system. There is empirical evidence ‘Pfi to support each criteria just as there is some empirical evidence t-l which cannot be readily explained by each criteria. The criteria often used by the Functional systems approach of Parsonian pattern 1 variable as sociological indices are criticised as insufficient when the concrete "supra-system" under analysis is a developing system. The particular criticism refers to its "conservative“ or "static" bias.9 7Such is the conclusion reached by Charles Andrain and David E. Apter, “Comparative Government: Developing New Nations," The Journal of Politics, 30 (1968): 372-416. A similar conclusion is reached by Harald D. Lasswell in a review of the series of volumes on poli- tical development published by Princeton University Press; Lasswell, gghe7tolicy Sciences of Development," World Politics, 17 (1965): 6- . 31h addition to the material cited above, Ch. VII, a serious and probing critique of an alternative approach is C. S. Whitaker, Jr., “A Dysrhythmic Process of Political Change," World Politics, 19 (1967): 190-217. A decisive break with present conceptslis argued by Pierre L. Van den Berghe, "Dialectic and Functionalism,“ American Sociological Review, 28 (1963): 695-705. 9All of the major exponents of the approach, and especially Parsons, strenously object to such a criticism. Almond and Powell's "logic of development" and Parsons' "evolutionary universals" contra- dict the criticism. Parsons confounds his critics by asserting the existence of “evolutionary universals" which permit the identifica- tion of a link between variables when the functional consequences are observed. For example, it could be argued on the basis of empi- rical evidence that there exists a definite link between popular participation and control of decision-making and the building and maintenance of support. 0n the basis of such a link, a democratic system could be judged superior to an authoritarian system since the integrative capacity of the former would be functionally 190 It is not a totally inaccurate simplification to characterize the Functionalist approach as the study of social and psychological bases for the formulation of preferences guiding behavior. When this approach is applied to data from developing nations the forma- tion of preferences and the choices following from those preferences are emphasized. The tendency then is to conceive of the political system, as well as other sub-systems, as embedded in a concrete supra-system.10 The action choices are understood as derivative and functioning to maintain stability of existing patterns. The thrift nm-_ I . It question of Hg! and me_these preferences exist, however, is the question that must concern a systems analysis of developing political systems. What would happen to the social processes if they went on undisturbed? The exchange of preferences would fall into a stability-maintaining type, or, conflict must be assumed to explain development. I The process characteristics found in the Analogue systems approach as the criteria of development is also criticised as partial when a developing system is the focus of analysis. Its connection of analytic and empirical systems is closest in "modern“ social systems but gaps appear when the social systems lacks either a common activist politica1 orientation among its members or an superior to the latter. Systems will either "advance" to higher levels of participation or “regress" to lower. less effective levels.‘ Talcott Parsons, "Evolutionar Universals in Society," American Sociological Review, 29 (1964 : 340-41, 353-56. 10Support fur the argument made by Almond and Pye in Contem- orary Political Science, ed., Pool. is found in Manfred Halprin, oward Further Modernization of the Study of New Nations," World Politics, 17 (1965 ): 157-81. 191 integrated and penetrating political system. The temporal and spatial limitations of the approach handicap an analysis of the formation of preferences rather than their implementation. The Specific-performance systems approach has the advantage of explicitly formulating developmental and political criteria although it is an incomplete formulation. It includes both the behavioral standard of the Functional approach and the structural, l . procedural standard of the Analogue approach. It remains incomplete [Tl due to the need for further elaboration of the interaction between behavioral and structural criteria.n Nevertheless, it promises a "further modernization" in the systemic study of political behavior. An Emergent Paradigm There has indeed been a revolution in the comparative study of politics. And today the revolution is firmly established. Now that it is possible to obtain greater perspective on what has occurred, what are some of the tessons that may be learned?‘2 The purpose of the revolution that established scientific principles for comparative politica1 analysis was complex: to build theoretical structures on descriptive foundations; to expand the scape of the study to the furthest limits by cross-national compara- tive studies; to look beyond formal institutional patterns to the political processes and functions supporting them; and to extend the lllwo important contributors to the develOpment of a new approach are Robert E. Ward and Dankwart A. Rustow, eds., Political Modernization in Japan and Turkey (Princeton, 1964), especially the artic1e by William Lockwood, “Economic and Political Modernization in Japan," ibid., pp. 117-45; also Wilbert E. Moore, Social Change (Englewood Cliifs, N.J., 1966), p. 67. lzThe following paragraph is a summary of Sidney Verba, "Some Di lenmas of Comparative Research," World Politics, 20 (1967): 111-27. 192 boundaries of the discipline beyond Western Europe and the Americas to become a global discipline. Above all, the purpose of the revo- lution was to fulfill the hope that meaningful comparisons of macro-political systems could be formulated. The rapidly increasing literature presenting data and new theoretical proposals to satisfy the expectations of the new science of comparative politics is substantial evidence for the success of I the revolution. In fact, the revolution may have been too successful.13 g“1 If the ancient regime that was the older study of comparative govern- ‘ ment was stagnating, the revolutionary regime that is the scientific study of comparative politics may be hyperactive--or so it seems at times when an attempt is made to collate and distill the new studies. It is not too much of an exaggeration to wonder’whether the study today is in need of consolidation and leadership. Frame- works, paradigms, and theoretical prooosals exist in abundance and, in some instances, detached from the purposes of the revolution.‘4 The "amorphous character" of much of the theoretical statements and the undigested bulk of empirical data produce a situation similar to one reSpect to that prevailing before the revolution: we still have many facts and we still are not totally certain as to what they ”Ibid.: 114. 14A recent assessment of the study of elites concludes: "Careful empirical research alone, nonetheless, cannot answer the fundamental questions that provide the original impulse for the early theories about elites . . . and the later research into their social composition.” The need for precise and versatile quantifi- cation is preceded by a need for significant and scientific ques- tioning in the judgment of Dankwart A. Rustow,“ The Study of Elites: Who's Who, When, and How," World Politics, 18 (1966): 714-17. 193 mean.15 Not despite, but due to the movement in the discipline, the qualitative dimension of substantive progress is hard to measure. There has been advancement and there has been improvement. The scope and the boundary of comparative politica1 analysis are hardly recognizable by earlier standards. Macro-political systems are compared in a variety of ways by using numerous theoretical frame- works. But the toughness of the problems remains and precludes the full establishment of a theory of macro-political systems. The search for a dynamic theory of political systems that continues to orient comparative political study necessitates a transliteration of concepts used in other social sciences as well as their inter-relation with concepts of political science. The most recent trend in comparative analysis bases itself on the rea- lization that some form of a “master index" is required.16 In order to interweave various sociological, psychological, and economic data existing in aggregate form to create an explanation of concrete politica1 actions demands an as yet missing variable. There is recent tendency to select as the intervening variable political structures. And this tendency brings the revolution full circle.17 15In a methodological note on the use of aggregate data, Michael C. Hudson finds political indicators need to be supple- mented to increase their effectiveness in "ecological comparisons." Hudson, "A Case of Political Underdevelopment," The Journal of Politics, 29 (1967): 821 -34. l5There is a superficial similarity between the present comments made by Hudson and the earlier comments urging quantitative compari- sons, above, Ch. I.‘ Hudson hypothesizes about an "underlying dimen- sion" not fully tapped by existing social mobilization and moderni- zation indices due to the anomolies found in his study of Lebanon. Ibid.: 835- 37. ’ l7"Although this line of speculation runs contrary to the major current theoretical positions in anthropology and sociology, which I EMTWT . v -. 194 The attempt to look beyond political institutions to search for their supportive processes of action has led once again to a fresh examination of political institutions. But the emphasis on the structural properties of political systems and the attendant consequences of various structures is a paradoxical development. Systems analysis, a specifically behavioral approach, has developed in the direction of re-weighting the structural and institutional variables. The paradoxical element is especially evident in the systemic studies of new nations from which a renewed appreciation for the creative, directive effects of institutionalized behavior spreads. The attempt to expand the scope and the boundaries of the study has produced another paradoxical effect. The search for compre- hension leads to the proliferation of specific and unique studies of the political process because of the empirical foundations of the study. The effect is to produce a dilemma: the search for general patterns of political behavior irrespective of structural differences requires the detailed examination of particular kinds of political behavior.18 The specific patterns of political action emphasize systemic relations, it is consistent with rather impressive historical experience” (Moore, Social Change, p. 75). See also Cyril E. Black, The Dynamics of Modernization (New York, 1966). 18The "neo-institutionalist school," so called in Andrain and Apter, "Comparative Government" The Journal of Politics: 372-416, is best exemplified in the work of Samuel 8. Huntington, "Political Development and Political Decay," World Politics, 17 (1965): 335-430, and "Political Modernization: America vs.Europe," World Politics, 18 (1965): 378-414; and S. N. Eisenstadt, The Political Systems of Em ires (New York, 1962). A significant attempt to integrate the institutional variable is J. P. Nettl, “The State as Conceptual Variable," World Politics, 20 (1968): 559-92. 195 occuring in the unique configuration of political structures must be the source for general laws of behavior. The present dilemma is only difficult and not impossible. Perhaps it is not a dilemma at all. A possible mode of solving the difficulty confronting comparative politics is to take advantage of the numerous theoretical approaches now existing. A self- conscious concern for separating and understanding the specialized criteria found in the several types of systems frameworks, coupled with an awareness of the comparative utilities deriving from these different frameworks, would seem to introduce the possibility of synthesizing the forms of systems analysis. The conditions for a merger are present; the furmer preoccupation with a form of systems analysis can now be replaced by an explicit concern for the impli- cations of the division of labor. More and more attempts to combine the various kinds of systemic frameworks are evident. The existence of different forms of systems analyses presents a dilemma only if a specific scientific standard of explanation is presumed. If there was only one scientific paradigm of explanation, and that one paradigm was logically compatible with only one kind of expla- nation, there would be a dilemma. The argument among the users of system theory, as well as the argument between users of systems theory and their critics, is sometimes based on the pre-assumption that there is The standard of explanation, or The universal law, under which all particular cases and all generalizations must be subsumed. But the “deductive paradigm" of explanation is not the only scientific model against which empirical generalizations must be 196 measured.19 The "inter-terminancy principle" applies equally to social science as it does to natural science. Social science ought to make full use of the variety of conceptualizations is possesses and apply those different conceptualizations in the search for multi-variated explanations of clusters of related events. It is wasteful and unnecessary to search for the single-factor explanation and deny the usefulness of alternative conceptuali- zations. Using the variety of formulations in concern in order E ‘ to produce different and partial explanations is more consistent F with the goal of explanation. Full knowledge of the comprehensive set of theories is presently beyond the parameters of social scien- tific explanation but it's absence does not present an obstacle. The obstacle that does exist is a presumption of certainty in methodological questions and the failure to use alternative models in empirical inquiry. The obstacle can be overcome by entertaining the proposition that models present alternatives that are to be tested through empirical examination in order to test their con- gruence with concrete situations.20 The types of systems theories examined above are appropriate for research considerations even though some are more accurate in their correspondence and more economical in their explanations. It is due to the different contexts and situations in which systems theory is applied that 19Meehan's major criticism of existing systemic analysis is its use of a "deductive paradigm" and his version of a systems concept adopts as "isomorphic paradigm." See Meehan, Explanation in Social Science, pp. 100-33. ‘ 20Reinhard Bendix and Bennett Berger, "Images of Society and Problems of Concept Formation in Sociology," in Symposium on Socio- logical Theory, ed., Llellynn Gross (New York, 1959), pp. 92-118. 197 variety exists and attempts to assert the superiority of one over the other necessarily remains an inconclusive effort. The salient task that now appears to to assess the respective strengths of the different types of theory. The further task that appears is to begin to use systems theories as "paired models." Searing has demonstrated the possibility of combining different models of leadership and thereby constructing a "combination of opposites."Zl Dahrendorf has demonstrated the possibility of combining different models of society and exploring the different facets of sociology.22 The procedure applies equally to political science. The implication of the analysis above is clear: a new para- digm for the comparative analysis of political behavior is needed and possible. The advance of the discipline began with the develop- ment of the sociological perspective. The study of specific problems, e.g., development, spurred the development. The appearance of a Functional system approach proved the applicability of a general systems theory in political science. Simultaneously the introduction of an analogue system approach occurred. Now, the first step toward a synthesis has been taken in the specific-performance systems approach. Together the significance and the operationalization of a systems analysis of political behavior promises to advance the scientific basis for comparative politics. 2lDonald D. Searing, "Models and Images of Man and Society in Leadership Theory," The Journal of Politics, 31 (1969): 3-32. 22Ralf Dahrendorf, Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (Stanford, Calif., 1959). BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerman, Carl, and Parsons, Talcott. “The Concept of 'Social System' as a Theoretic Device." In Concepts, Theory,pand Explanation in the Behavioral Sciences, edited byG. J} DiRenzo. New York: Random House,11966. Almond, Gabriel A., and Verba, Sidney. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Boston: Little, Brown and'Co.,’l965. Almond, Gabriel A., and Powell, G. Bingham, Jr. Com arative Politics: A Developmental Approach. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1966. Almond, Gabriel A., and Coleman, James S., eds. The Politics of DevelopipgpAreas. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960. Almond, Gabriel A. "Introduction: A Functional Approach to Comparative [ Politics." In The Politics of Developin Areas, edited by Gabriel A. 1 tlmond and James S._Chleman. _Princeton: r1nceton University Press, ~" 960. . "Political Theory and Political Science.“ In ContemporarylPOlitical Science: Toward Empirical Theor , edited by Ithiel deSola Pool. New York: McGraw-HilllBook Co., 1567. . "A Comparative Study of Interest Groups and the PoliticalTProcess.“ American Political Science Review 52 (1958): 270-82. . "A Developmental Approach to Political Systems." World Politics 17 (1965): 183-214. . “Political Systems and Political Change.“ AmericanlBehavioral Scientist 9 (1963): 3-10. Almond, Gabriel A.; Cole, R.; and Macridis, Roy C. ”A Su gested Research Strategy in West European Government and Polit cs." American Political Science Review 49 (1955): 1042-49. Andrain, Charles, and Apter, David E. "Comparative Government: Developing New Nations.“ The Journal of Politics 30 (1968): 372-416. ' ' ' ' ' ' * Apter. David E. The Politics of Modernization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955,- . . Apter, David E., ed. Ideology and Discontent. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1964. ' ’ ' ' ' 198 199 Apter, David E. "A Comparative Method for the Study of Politics.“ American Journal of Sociology 64 (1958): 221-37. . "The Role of Traditionalism in the Political [MudernizatiOn of Ghana and Uganda.“ World Politics 12 (1960): 45-68. Baldwin, Alfred L. "The Parsonian Theory of Personality." In The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons: A Critical Examination, edited by Max Black. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentieeihall, 1961. Banfield, Edward C. The Moral Basis of a Backward Society. New , 1 York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1958. 1 Banks, Arthur 5., and Textor, Robert B. A Cross-Polity Survey. 1 Cambridge: M. I. T. Press, 1963. Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua, ed. Lo ic Methodolo and Philospphy of Science. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1965. Bay, Christian. "Politics and Pseudopolitics: A Critical Evaluation of Some Behavioral Literature." American Political Science Review 59 (1965): 39-51. Beer, Samuel H., and Ulam, Adam 8. Patterns of Government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958. Bell, Daniel, ed. The Radical Right. New York: Doubleday & Co., Anchor Books, 1962. Benda, Harry J. "Non-Western Intelligentsias as Political Elites." In Political Change in Underdeveloped Countries: Nationalism and Communism, edited by John H. Kautsky. New York: JOhn Wiley & Sons, 1962. Bendix, Reinhard. Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday 8 Co., Anchor Books, 1962. Bendix, Reinhard and Berger, Bennett. "Images of Society and Problems of Concept Formation in Sociology.“ In Symposium on Sociological Theor , edited by Llewellyn Gross. New York: Harper & Row, ub shers, 1959. ' ' ‘ Benson, Oliver. "Challenges for Research in International Relations and Comparative Politics. “ In A roaches to Com arative and International Politics, edited by R. Barry Farrell. Evanston: Norihwestern University Press, 1966. “ Bentley. A. F. The Process of Government. 2d ed. Evanston, 111.: Principia Press, 1935. 200 Binder, Leonard. Iran: Political Development in a Changing Societ . Berkeley and Los Angeles: University ofuCalifornia Press, 1962 . Religion and Politics in Pakistan. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univer51ty Oféfalifornia Press, 1961. . "National Integration and Political Development." American Political Science Review 58 (1964): 622-31. Black, Cyril E. The Dynamics of Modernization. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1966. 1‘ Black, Max. Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy. ‘3 Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1962‘. . M Black, Max, ed. The Social Theories of Talcott Parsonsng Critical Examination. Englewood*C1if?s, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1961. Black, Max. "Some Questions about Parsons' Theories. In The Social . Theories of Talcott Parsons: AN Critical Examination, editédwby t-~ Max Black.Englewood'C11ffs, Prentice-Hall‘il961 Blanksten, George I. "International Politics and Foreign Policy in Developing Systems." In Approaches to Compgrative and Inter- national Politics, edited by R.7BarryFarréll. Evanston: Northwestern university Press, 1966. Blau, Peter M. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1964. Bluhm, William T. Theories of the Political System. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeJHall, 1965. Boarstin, Daniel J. The Genius of American Politics. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1953. Boskoff, Alvin and Becker, Howard, eds. Modern Sociological Theory. New York: Dryden Press, 1957. Bottomore, T. B. Sociolo A Guide to Problems and Literature. Englewood Cliffs, N. J: Prentice-Hall, 1963? Boulding, Kenneth. Conflict and Defense: A General Theory. New York: Harper & RowC_Publishers,1962. Braithwaite, R. B. Scientific Explanation: A Study of the Function of Theory, Probabii and Law inScience. Cambridge: Cambridge n vers ty ress, 955. Braybrooke, David and Lindbloom, Charles E. A Strate of Decision: Policy Evaluation as a Social Process. New York: The Free Press, |§630 201 Brown, Robert R. Explanation in Social Science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963. Buckley, Halter. Sociology and Modern Systems Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967} Burdick, Eugene and Brodbeck, Arthur J., eds. American Voting Behavior. New York: The Free Press, 1959. Cantril, Hadley. The Patterglof Human Concerns. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1965. Carter, Gwendolen M. Five African States: Responses to Diversity. Ithaca: Cornell UniversityPress, 1963. Charlesworth, James C., ed. Contemporary Political Analysis. New York: The Free Press, 1967} Chin, Robert. “The Utility of System Models and Developmental Models.” In Political Development and Social Chan e, edited by gason Finkle and Richard N. Gable. New York: John iley & Sons, 966. Churchman, C. N. Prediction and Optimal Decision. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1961. . “Design and Inquiry." Mimeographed. Berkeley, Ca1if.:5pace Sciences Laboratory, 1965. . "Kantian Inquiring Systems." Mimeographed. Berkeley, Calif.: Space Sciences Laboratory, n.d. Colegrove, Kenneth. "Comparative Politics: A Conference Report." American Political Science Review 21 (1927): 389-93. Coleman, James S., and Rosberg, Carl G., eds. Political Parties and National Integration in Africa. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1964. Coleman, James S. "Conclusion: The Political Systems of Developing Areas." In The Politics of Develo in Areas, edited by Gabriel A. Almond and James S. COleman. ‘Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960. ‘ ‘ Collins, Barry F., and Guetzkow, Harold. A Social Psychology of Grou Processes for Decision-Making, New York: JohnWileyE ons, 64. ‘ ' Coser, Lewis. The Functions of Social Conflict. New York: The Free Press, 1956. ' 1"; -.. 202 Count, Earl W., and Bowles, T., eds. Fact and Theory in Social Science. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1964. Crick, Bernard R. The American Science of Politics. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univer51tyo of California Press,1959. . In Defense of Politics. rev. ed. Baltimore: Penguin Books, Pelican Books,ll964. Dahl, Robert A. Modern Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1961. . Who Governs: Problems of Democracy in an American '_City. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961. . "The Evaluation of Political Systems. " In Contemporarnyolitical Science: Toward Empirical Theor , edited by Ithiel deSolalPool. New‘York: lMcGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967. . "The Behavioral Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a Monument to a Successful Protest." American Political Science Review 4 (1961): 763-72. "The Concept of Power.“ Behavioral Science 2 W, Dahrendorf, Ralf. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford: Stanford‘Ufiiversity Press,‘1959. . "Out of Utopia.“ American Journal of Sociology_ 6 958 : 5-27. Davies, James C. Human Nature in Politics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1963. Davis, Kingsley. "The Myth of Functional Analysis as a Special Method in Sociolog and Anthropology." American Journal of Sociology 24 (1959: 757-72. Deutsch, Karl W. The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and—Control. New Yorklehe FreePress, 1963. Deutsch, Karl W. , and Foltz, William T. , eds. Nation-Building. New York: Atherton Press, 1963. Deutsch, Karl W. "Integration and the Social System: Implications of Functional Analysis. " In The Integration of Political Communities, edited by Philip E. Jacobs and James V. lbscano. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1964. 203 Deutsch, Karl W. "Autonomy and Boundaries According to Communication Theory.“ In Toward a Unified Theory of Human Behavior, edited by Roy F. Grinker. New York: Basic Bocks, 1956. . "Social Mobilization and Political Development." American Political Science Review 55 (1961): 493-514. . “Towards an Inventory of Basic Trends and Patterns in ComparatiVe and International Politics." American Political Science Review 54 (1960): 34-57. Deutsch, Morton, and Krauss, Robert M. Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Basic Books, 1965. Devereux, Edward C., Jr. "Parsons' Sociological Theory." In Ihg_ Social Theories of Talcott Parsons: A Critical Examination, editecfliy Max Black. EngTewood Cl i ffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1961 . Diament, Alfred. "Political Development: Approaches to Theory and Strategy.” In Approaches to Development: Politics, Administration and Change, edited'byJohn D. Montgomery and"Wi11iam J. Siffen. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1966. . "Is There a Non-Western Political Process?" —_The Journal”6f'Politics 21 (1959): 123-27. DiRenzo, G. J., ed. Concepts,_Theory and Explanation in the Behavioral Sciences. New York:_Rand6m House, 1966. Dore, Ronald P. “Function and Cause." American Sociological Review 26 (1961): 843-53. Downs, Anthony. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1957. Dowse, Robert E. “A Functionalist's Logic." World Politics 18 (1966): 607-22. Dubin, Robert. “Parsons' Actor: Continuities in Social Theory." American Sociological Review 25 (1960): 468. Durkheim, Emile. Rules of the Sociological Method. Translated by Sarah A. Solovay and Jahn H. Mueller. Edited by George E. G. Catlin. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964.‘ ' Easton, David. A_Framework for Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeeHall, 1965. ‘ ' The Political System. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953. 204 Easton, David. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 19652 Easton, David, ed. Varieties of Political Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966. Easton, David. "Categories for the Systems Analysis of Politics." In Varieties of Political Theory, edited by David Easton. Englewood Cliffs,lNLJ.: Prentice-Hall,‘1966. "Equilibrium and the Social System." In Political Behavior: A Reader in Theory and Research, edited by Heinz Eulau; 1%“: Samuel J2 Eldersveld; and Morris Janowitz. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1959. . "An A proach to the Analysis of Political Systems." World Politics 9 (1957?: 383-400. . "Limits of the Equilibrium Model in Political 1 ScTenCET“ Behavioral Science 1 (1956): 96-104. (".9113 Eckstein, Harry, ed. Internal War. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964. Eckstein, Harry, and Apter, David E., eds. Comparative Politics: A Reader. New York: The Free Press, 1963. Eckstein, Harry. "Constitutional Engineering and the Problem of Viable Representative Government." In Comparative Politics: A Reader, edited by Harry Eckstein and David E. Apter. New York: The Free Press, 1963. . “A Perspective on Comparative Politics: Past and”PresentT“—'In Comparative Politics: A Reader, edited by Harry Eckstein and David E} Apter. New York: The Free Press, 1963. . "Political Science and Public Policy." In Cbntem rar Political Science: Toward Empirical Theor , edited by Ithiel geSo‘a Pool. New York: McGraw-Hill Book 0., 967. . "The Concept of 'Political System': A Review and Revision." Paper read at annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 4-7, 1963, at New York City. ' ‘ ' ° ' ' ' ' Edin er, Lewis J., and Searing, Donald D. "Social Background in Elite Analysis: A Methodological Inquiry." American Political Science Review 61 (1967): 428-45. 205 Ehrmann, Henry. Interest Groups on Four Continents. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh UniversityPress, 1958. Eisenstadt, S. N. The Political Systems of Empires. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962} . "Initial Patterns Institutional of Political wModernization." In PoliticalModernization: A Reader in Comparative Political Change, edited by Cladde E. welch, Jr. Belmont, Calif.: wadsworthPublishing Co., 1967. Emerson, Rupert. From Empire to Nation: The Rise to Self-Assertion of Asian and African Peoples. *Boston: Beacon Press, 1960. Erikson, Erik H. Young Man Luther: A Study in Psychoanalysis and History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1958. Childhood and Society. 2d ed. New York: W. W. Norton 2700., 1963. Etzioni, Amitai. Studies in Social Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966. Eulau, Heinz; Eldersveld, Samuel J.; and Janowitz, Morris, eds. Political Behavior: A Reader in Theory and Research. Glencoe, lll.: Free Press, 1959. Fagen, Richard R. Politics and Communication. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1966. Farrell, R. Barry, ed. Approaches to Comparative and International Politics. Evanston: Northwestern UniVersity Press, l966. Feigl, Herbert, and Broadbeck, May, eds. Readin s in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1953. Finkle, Jason, and Gable, Richard W., eds. Political Development and Social Change. New York: John Wiley 5 Sons, 1966. Flanigan, William, and Edgelman, Edwin. "Functionalism in Political Science.“ In fgnctionalism in the Social Sciepces: The Stren th and Limits of Functionalism in Anthropology, Economics, Political Science, and’Sociopgy, edited by Donald‘Martindale. Philadelphia: The American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1965. Fortes, Meyer. and Evans-Prttchard, E. E., eds. African Political Systems. London: Oxford University Press, 1940. Friedrich, Carl J. Man apgiHis Government: An_Empirical Theory of Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1963. (fir 206 Friedrich, Carl J. "Political Pathology." Political Quarterly 37 (1966): 71. Geertz, Clifford, ed. Old Societies and New States: The Quest for Modernity in Asia and Africa. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, T963. Golembiewski, Robert T. Behavior and Organization. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1962. Gould, James A., and Thursby, Vincent V. Contemporary_Political Thopght: Issues in Scope, Value, and Direction.liNew York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969. Gouldner, Alvin W. "Reciprocity and Autonomy." In Symposium on Sociological Theory, edited by Llewellyn Gross. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, l959. . "The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement.“ American Sociological Review 25 (1960): 172-89. Greenstein, Fred I. “The Impact of Personality on Politics: An Attempt to Clear Away Underbrush." American Political Science Review 56 (1967): 629-41. Gregor, James A. “Political Science and The Uses of Functional Analysis.“ American Political Science Review 62 (1968): 425-39. Grinker, Roy F., ed. Toward a Unified Theory of Human Behavior. New York: Basic Books, l956. Gross, Bertram. The Legislative Struggle. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1953. Gross, Llewellyn, ed. Symposium on Sociological Theory. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers,ll959. Guetzkow, Harold, ed. Simulation in International Relations: Development for Research andTraining.‘lEnglewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prenti ce-HFIT, i 963 . Haas, Ernst. Beyond the Nation-State: Functionalism and International Organization. Stanford: StanfordUniversity Press, 1964) Haas, Michael. "Aggregate Analysis." World Politics 19 (1966): 106-21. Hacker, Andrew. "Sociology and Ideology." In The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons: A Critical Examination, editedlby Max Black. Englewood Cliffs,zN.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1961. ‘ Hagen, E. E. On the Theory of Social Change. Homewood, 111.: The Dorsey Press,1962. 207 Halprin, Manfred. "Toward Further Modernization of the Study of New Nations." World Politics 17 (1965): 157-81. Hanna, William J., ed. Independent Black Africa: The Politics of Freedom. Chicago: Rand‘McNally & Co., 1964. Hart, H. L. A. Law, Liberty, and Morality. New York: Random House, Vintage Books,ll963. Hayek, Frederick A. The Counter-Revolution in Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Heaphey, James. “The Organization of Egypt: Inadequacies of a Non-politica1 Model fOr Nation-Building." World Politics 18 (1966): 177-93. Heckscher, Gunnar. “General Methodological Problems. “ In Comparative Politics: A Reader, edited by Harry Eckstein and David E. Apter. New‘York: ThelFree Press, 1963. Hempel, Carl G. Appects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press, l965. . "The Logic of Functional Analysis." In S osium on Sociological Theory, edited by Llewellyn Gross. New YorE: Harper—E’Row,Publishers, 1959. Herring, Pendleton. "On the Study of Government." American Political Science Review 47 (1953): 961-74. Hess, Robert D. "The Socialization of Attitudes Toward Political Azghority." International Social Science Journal 15 (1963): 5 -59. Hesse, Mary. "The Explanatory Function of Metaphor." nLo ic Methodology, and Philosoghy of Science, edited by Yehoshua Ear- e . ste am or - 0 an ishing Co. ., 1965. Hinkle, J. Gisela, and Hinkle, Roscoe C. Development of Modern Sociology. New York: Random House, 1954. Hod kin, Thomas. "The Relevance of 'Western' Ideas for the New A rican States. " In Self- Government in Modernizing .Nationa, edited by J. Roland PennoCk. Englewood C1iif$le.J :Pm ntice- Hall, 1964. ' Holsti, Ole. "An Adaptation of the 'General Inquirer' for the Systemic Analysis of Political Documents. " Behavioral Science 9 (1964): 382- 88. ' Holt, Robert T. , and Turner, John E. The Political Basis of Economic Development: An Explanation in Comparative Polit1cal’Analysis. Pr1nceton, N. J: D. lVan Nostrand andCo., I966. . 4’” 208 Horney, Karen. Neurosis and Human Growth. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1950. Horowitz, I. L. “Sociology and Politics: The Depths of Functionalism Revisited." The Journal of Politics 25 (1963): 248-64. Hoselitz, Bert F. "Levels of Economic Performance and Bureaucratic Structures." In Bureaucracy and Political Develppment, edited by Joseph LaPalombara. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963. Hudson, Michael C. "A Case of Political Underdevelopment.“ Ihg_ Journal of Politics 29 (1967): 821-37. Huntington, Samuel B. "Political Development and Political Decay." World Politics 17 (1965): 386-430. . "Political Modernization: America vs. Europe." World Politics 18 (1965): 378-414. Irish, Marion D., ed. Political Science: Advance of the Discipline. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968. Jacobs, Philip E., and Toscano, James V., eds. The Integrat19g_ of Political Communities. Philadelphia: J. B.Lippincott Co., 1964. James, William. Principles of Psychology, New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1950. Johnson, Chalmers. Revolutionary Chaggg, Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1966. Kahin, George M.; Pauker, Guy J.; and Pye, Lucian W. "Comparative Politics of the Non-Western Countries." American Political Science Review 49 (1955): 1022-41. Kalleberg, Arthur L. “The Logic of Comparison: A Methodological Note on the Comparative Study of Political Systems." World Politics 19 (1966): 69-82. Kapil, Ravi L. “On the Conflict Potential of Inherited Boundaries in Africa." World Politics 18 (1966): 656-73. Kaplan, Abraham. The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodolpgy for Behavioral Science. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1964. Kaplan, Morton A. Systems and Prpgess in International Politics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1957. . "Systems Theory." In Contemporary Political Anal sis, edited by James C. Charlesworth. New York: The Free Press, 1967. 209 Kautsky, John H., ed. Political Change in Underdeveloped Countries: Nationalism and Communism. Neinork: John’Wiley &lSons, 1962} Keller, Susan. Beyond the Ruling Class: Strategic Elites in Modern Society. New York: Random House, 1963. Kim, Young C. "The Concept of Political Culture in Comparative Politics." The Journal of Politics 26 (1964): 313- 36. Koch, Sigmund, ed. Psychology: A Study of a Science. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1959. ' Kolb, William L. "The Changing Prominence of Values.‘ In Modern Sociological Theory, edited by Alvin Boskoff and Howard Be cker. NewlYork: Dryden Press, 1957. "" M MI'.‘ Kress, Paul F. "Self, System, and Significance: Reflections on a Professor Easton's Political Science.“ Ethics 77 (1966): 1-13. Kroeber, A. L., and Parsons, Talcott. "The Concepts of Culture and Social System." American Sociological Review 23 (1958): 582-83. Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago‘Press,*1962. LaPalombara, Joseph. Interest Groups in Italian Politics. Princeton: Princeton UniversitylPress, 1964. LaPalombara, Joseph, ed. Bureaucraoyyand Political Development. Princeton: Princeton UniversitylPress, 1963. Lasswell, Harold D. The Future of Political Science. New York: Atherton Press, 1963. Psychopathology and Politics. New York: Viking 'Press,‘1962. Lasswell, Harold D.; Lerner, Daniel; and Rothwell, C. Easton. The Comparative Study of Elites. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1952. Lasswell, Harold D., and Kaplan, Abraham. Power and Society. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1950. ' ‘ Lasswell, Harold 0. "Agenda for the Study of Political Elites.“ In Political Decision-Makers, edited by Draine Marvick. New York: The FreelPress,1961. ' . "The Policy Sciences of Development. " World Politicsl7 (1965): 256- 71. 210 Lerner, Daniel. The Passingyof Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East. Neinork: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1958. Levy, Marion J. The Structure of Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952. Modernization and the Structure of Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press, l966. . "Patterns (Structures) of Modernization and Political Development.“ In New Nations: The Problem of Political Development, edited by Karl YonPVOrys. Philadelphia: The Annals of"The American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1965. . "Some Aspects of Structural-Functional Analysis and PolitioallScience.“ In Approaches to the Study of Politics, edited by Roland Young. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1959. . "Some Questions About 'The Concepts of Culture and’oflSocial—System'." American Sociological Review 24 (1959): 247-48. Lindzey, Gardner, ed. Handbook of Social Psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison, Wesley,11954. Lipset, Seymour M. The First New Nation. New York: Basic Books, 1963. Lipset, Seymour M., and Lowenthal, Leo, eds. Culture and Social Character. New York: The Free Press, 1961. Lipset, Seymour M. "Some Social Requisites of Democracy, Economic Development, and Legitimacy." American Political Science Review 53 (1959): 69-105. Lockwood, David. "Some Remarks on 'The Social System'." British Journal of Sociology 3 (1956): 134-46. Lockwood, William. "Economic and Political Modernization in Japan.” In Political Modernization in Japan and Turkey, edited by Robert E. Ward—and Dankwart A. Rustow. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964. ' ‘ Lowenstein, Karl. "Report of the Research Panel on Comparative Politics.“ American Political Science Review 38 (1944): 540-48. Lowi, Theodore. "Toward Functionalism in Political Science: The Case of Innovation in Party Systems." American Political Science Review 58 (1963): 570-83.‘ 1 i I'.‘ c ‘21 I ‘TIIIII IIPIHItj“ 211 Macridis, Roy C. "A Survey of the Field of Comparative Government.“ In Comparative Politics: AReader, edited by Harry Eckstein and David E. Apter. New York: The Free Press, 1963. . "Groups and Group Theory.“ The Journal of Politics 3 96 : 335-64. . "Interest Groups in Comparative Analysis." Ihg_ Journallof Politics 23 (1961): 30-50. Macridis, Roy 0., and Cox, Richard. "Research in Comparative Politics." American Political Science Review 47 (1953): 641-61. {*1 Mair, Lucy. Primitive Government. Baltimore: Penguin Books, Pelican Books, 1962. Malenbaum, Wilfred. "Economic Factors and Political Development." In New Nations: The Problem of Political Develo nt, edited by Karl7Von Vorys. Philadelphia§nlhe Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1965. lm Malinowski, 8. "Culture." In Enc clopedia of the Social Sciences, 4. New York: Macmillan Co., Mannoni, Otari. Pros ero and Caliban: The Psycholo of Colonization. Translated by Pamela Poweslandl lNew York: Freder ck A. Praeger, 1956. Martindale, Donald, ed. Functionalism in the Social Sciences: The Strength and Limits of Functionalism in Anthropolo JEconomics, Political Science, and Sociolo . ‘Philadelphia: e American Academy 6?_Politica1 and oc1a Science, 1965. Marvick. Dwaine, ed. Political Decision-Makers. New York: The Free Press, 1961. Maslow, Abraham H. Motivation and Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1954. Matossian, Mary. "Ideologies of Delayed Industrialization: Some Tensions and Ambiguities.“ In Political Chan e in Underdeveloped Countries: Nationalism and Communism, edited~ y John H1 Kautsky. Neinork:lJohn Wiley & Sons, 1962. McClelland, David C. The AchieveingSociety. Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand Co.,—1961. ‘ ‘ McDonald, Neil A., and Rosenau, James N. "Political Theory as Academic Field and Intellectual Activity." In Political Science: Advance of thejDiscipline, edited by Marion D. IriSh. Englewood’ Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968. 212 Meehan, Eugene J. Contemporary Political Thought: A Critical Study. Homewood, 111.: The Dorsey Press, 1967. . Eyplanation in Social Science: A System Paradigm. Homewood, Ill}: ThehDorseyPress,l968. Meisel, James. The Myth of the Ruling Class. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,*1963. Merriam, Charles R. New Aspects of Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1925. Merritt, Richard L., and Rokkan, Stein, eds. Comparing Nations. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966. Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. rev. ed. New York: The Free Press, 1957. Merton, Robert K. , ed. Sociology Today: Problems and Prospects. New York: Basic Books ,“T959. Milbrath, Lester W. Political Participation. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1965. S Miller, James G. "Living Systems: Basic Concepts." Behavioral Science 10 (1965): 193- 237. Millikan, Max F., and Blackmer, Donald L. M. The Emerging Nations. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1961. Mills, C. Wright. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press, 1956. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Grove Press,l1961. Mitchell, William C. The American Polity. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1963. . Sociolo ical Anal sis and Politics: The Theories of 1alcott Parsons. Englewood Cli¥f5,N.J.:Prentice-Hall, 1967. Montgomery, John D. , and Siffen, William J... eds. Approaches to Dgyelopment: Politics, Administrationtyand Chapge, Neinork: McGraw-Hill Book Co... 1966. ‘ Moore, Wilbert E. Social Chapgg, Englewood Cliffs, N. J: Prentice- Hall, 1966.‘ l J 213 Morse, Chandler. "The Functional Imperatives." In The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons: A Critical Examination, editedByMaxBlack. EnglewOOHTCliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, l96l. Nadel, Sigfried F. The Theory of Social Structure. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, l957. Nagel, Ernest. Logic Without Metaphysics: And Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New’York?'The Free Press of Glencoe, 1966. Nettl, J. P. "The State as Conceptual Variable." World Politics 20 (l968): 559-92. ._mfl Nettl, Peter. “The Concept of System in Political Science.“ Political Studies 14 (l966): 305-38. Neumann, Sigmund. ”Comparative Politics: A Half-Century Appraisal.“ The Journal of Politics 2 (l957): 369-90. Northrup, Filmer S. C. Logic of The Sciences and The Humanities. New York: World Publishing Co., Meridian Books, 7559. Ogles, R. H., and Levy, Marion J. "Culture and Social Systems: An Exchange." American Sociological Review 24 (1959): 248-50. Organski, A. F. K. The Stages of Development. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, l965. Packingham, Robert A. "A proaches to the Study of Political Development.“ World Politics l7 (l964§: l08-20. Paige, Glenn. "The Rediscovery of Politice.“ In Approaches to Development: Politics, Administration and Chan e, edited'by John D. Montgomery and—William J. Si? en. *New ork: McGraw-Hill Book Co., l966. Pa{go?s, Talcott. The Social System. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 5 . . The Structure of Social Action. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co., l937. ‘ ‘ Parsons, Talcott, and Smelser, Neil J. Economy and Society. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, l956. ' Parsons, Talcott; Bales, R. F.; Olds, James; Zelditch, Morris; and Slater, Philip. Family, Sociglization, and Interaction Process. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, l955. ‘ 214 Parsons, Talcott; Bales, R. F.; and Shils, Edward. Working Papers in The Theory of Action. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1953. Parsons, Talcott, and Shils, Edward, eds. Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge: Harvard University‘Press,l951. Parsons, Talcott. ”An Approach to Psychological Theory in Terms of the Theory of Action.“ In Ps cholo : A Stud of a Science, edited by Sigmund Koch. New YorE: McGraw-fiill Book Co., 1959. . "General Theory in Sociology." In Sociology Today: PrOblems and Prospects, edited by Robert K. Merton. New York: Basic Bodks, 1959. Parsons, Talcott, and White, Winston. "The Link Between Character and Society." In Culture and Social Character, edited by Leymour M. Lipset and"Leo Lowenthal. Neinork: The Free Press, l96l. (A?! U" ...I .. iii . du‘ I 1 Parsons, Talcott. "The Point of View of the Author.“ In The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons: A Critical Examination, edited by Max BTaCk. Englewoodficliffs, N.Jl: Prentice-Hall, l96l. 3:, j_, "Recent Trends in Structural-Functional Analysis." In Fact and'Theorypin Social Science, edited by Earl W. Count and 1. Bowles. Syracusez’Syracuse University Press, 1964. . “Social Strains in America." In The Radical Ri ht, gditedby Daniel Bell. New York: Doubleday & Co., Anchor Books, 962. . “Social Strains in America: A Postscript." In The RadicaT Ri ht, edited by Daniel Bell. New York: Doubleday & Co., Anchor—Boo s, l962. . "Some Highlights of the General Theory of Action." ’InFApproaChes to the Study of Politics, edited by Roland Young. Evanston: Northwestern UniversityPress, l959. . “Some Reflections on the Place of Force in Social Process." in Internal War, edited by Harry Eckstein. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, I964. ' g_g . "'Voting' and the Equilibrium of the American Political System." In American Voting Behavior, edited by Eugene Burdick and Arthur J. Brodbeck. New York: The Free Press, 1959. ¥_, “Evolutionary Universals in Society." American "‘Sociological Review 29 (l964): 339-57. 215 Parsons, Talcott. "Pattern Variables Revisited." American Socio- logical Review 25 (1960): 467-83. . "A Rejoinder to Ogles and Levy." American Socio- logical Review 24 (l959): 269-59. . "A Short History of My Intellectual Development." Aflpha Kappa Deltan 29 (no. I, 1959): 3-12. . "Some Comments on the State of the General Theory of Action.“l;American Sociological Review l8 (l953): 6l8-3l. Pe"“°°k' J- R013Dd. ed. Self-Government in Modernizing Nations. [u Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, l964. 1 . "Political Development, Political Systems, and h, Political Goods." World Politics 18 (l966): 4l5-34. ‘ Polsby, Nelson. Community Power and Political Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963. Pool, Ithiel deSola. Contemporary_Political Science: Toward Empirical Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill’Book Cb., l967} Popper, Karl R. The Open Society and Its Enemies. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, T961} Presthus, Robert B. The Organizational Society: An Analysis and A Theory. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 19621 Pye, Lucian W. Politics, Personality, and Nation-Building: Burma's Search for Identity. New Haven: Yale University’Press, . . "The Formation of New States." In Contemporary Political Seience: Toward Empirical Theory, edited by Ithiel deSola Pool. ’New York: MCGraw-Hill Book'Co., 1967. ”The Non-Western Political Process.“ The Journal W0 0 t'lcs .(1958):46B-86. Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. A Natural Science of Society. London and Glencoe, Ill.: Falcon's WingPress and FreelPress, l957. . Structure and Function in Primitive Society. NewWork: The Free Press, T956. . "On the Concept of Function in Social Science." American Anthropologist 37 (I935): 92-l37. 216 Ranney, Austin. Essays on the Behavioral Study of Politics. Urbana: University ofllllinois Press, l962. Rapoport, Anatol. Fights, Games, and Debates. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, l960. . Two-Person Game Theory: The Essential Ideas. Ann Arbor: university OfMichigan Press, 1966. . "Some System Approaches to Political Theory." In varieties of Political Theory, edited by David Easton. Englewood Cliffs,’N.JZ: Prentice-Hall, 1966. Retzlaff, Ralph H. "The Use of Aggregate Data in Comparative Political Analysis." The Journal of Politics 27 (1965): 797-817. Riggs, Fred W. Administration in Developing_Countries: The Theory of Prismatic Society. *Boston: HoughtonlMifflin Co., l967. . Thailand: The Modernization of a Bureaucratic Polity. Honolulu: East-West Center Press, l966. . "Bureaucrats and Political Development." In Bureaucragy and Political Development, edited by Joseph LaPalombara. Princeton:PrincetonUniverSity Press, l963. . "The Theory of Political Development." In Contemporary Political Analysis, edited by James C. Charlesworth. New York: The Free Press, l967. . "'Agraria and Industria': Toward a Typology of Comparative Administration." In Toward the Comparative Study of Public Administration, edited by William J. Siffin. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, l959. . ”The Theory of Developing Polities." World Polit1cs l6 (I963): l47-5l. Riker, William H. Theory of Political Coalitions. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964. Robson, William A. “America Revisited." Political Quarterly 34 (l963): 339-53. Rosenau, James N. "Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy." In Approaches to Comparative and Ihternational Politics, edited by R.Barry Farrell. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, l966. 217 Rostow, Walter W. The Process of Economic Growth. rev. ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1960. . The Stages of Economic Growth. New York: Oxford University Press,l960. Rudner, Richard. Philosophy of Social Science. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966. Runciman, W. G. Social Science and Political Theory. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress, l963. Russett, Bruce; Alker, Hayward R., Jr.: Deutsch, Karl W.; and Lasswell, Harold D. World Handbook of Politica1_and Social Indicators. New Haven:‘Yale UniverSity Press, 1964. Rustow, Dankwart A. "New Horizons for Comparative Politics." World Politics 9 (1957): 530-49. . "The Study of Elites: Who's Who, When, and How." World.Politics 18 (1966): 690-714. Schapera, Issac. Government and Polities in Tribal Societies. New York: Humanities Press, l956. Scheuch, Erwin K. “Cross National Comparisons Using Aggregate Data: Some Substantive and Methodological Problems." In ComparingyNations, edited by Richard L. Merritt and Stein Rokkan. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966. Schramm, Wilber. Mass Media andINational Develogment: The Role of Information in the Developjpg_Countries. Stan or : tan or University Press, 1964? Shubik, Martin, ed. Game Theory and Related Approaches to Social Behavior. New York: John WileylESons, 1964. Searing, Donald D. "Models and Images of Man and Society in Leader- ship Theory." The Journal of Politics 31 (1969): 3-31. Seligman, Lester G. "Elite Recruitment and Political Development.“ The Journal of Politics 26 (1964): 612-26. ' Shils, Edward. Political Development in The New States. The Hagge: Morton and Co., 1966. ‘ ‘ ‘ * Siffin, William J., ed. Toward the Comparative Stud f Public Administration. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1959. Simon, Herbert A. "Notes on the Observation and Measurement of Political Power.“ ‘The Journal of Politics 15 (1953): 500-16. 218 Simon, Herbert A., and March, James 6. Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958. Skilling, H. Gordon. "Interest Groups and Communist Politics." World Politics 18 (1965): 435-51. Skinner, B. F. Science and Human Behavior. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1965. Smelser, Neil J. Social Change_in the Industrial Revolution. Chicago: University of’Chicago Press,*l959. Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations. New York: Random House, Modern Library, 1937. Snyder, Richard. "Forward." In Contemporarnyolitical Science: Toward Empirical Theory, edited by Ithiel deSolalPeol. NewlYork: McGraw-Hill BoOk Co., l967. Somit, Albert, and Tanenhaus, Joseph. American Political Science: A Profile of a Discipline. New York: Athertoanress, 1964: . The Development of Political Science. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 19 7. . “Trends in American Political Science." American Political Science Review 57 (1963): 933-47. Spiro, H. J. "An Evaluation of Systems Theory." In Contemporary Political Analysis, edited by James C. Charlesworth. New York: The Free Press, l967. Sutton, F. X. ”Analyzing Social Change." In Political Development and Social Change, edited by Jason Finkle and Richarle. Gable. New Ybrk: John Wiley & Sons, 1966. Swanson, G. E. "The Approach to a General Theory of Action by §arsons and Shils.“ American Sociological Review 18 (1953): 25-34. Truman, David B. The Governmental Process. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1952. ' . "Disillusion and Degeneration: The Quest for a Discipline.""American Political Science Review 59 (1965): 865-73. Tsou, Tang. America's Failure in China: 1941-1950. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,l963. Ulmer, S. Sidney, ed. Introductor Readin s in Political Behavior. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., T961. 219 Van den Berghe, Pierre L. "Dialectic and Functionalism." American Sociological Review 28 (1963): 695-705. Verba, Sidney. Small Groups and Political Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961. . "Some Dilemmas in Comparative Research.“ *iWorid POlitics 20 (1967): 111-27. Von Vorys, Karl, ed. New Nations: The Problem of Political Development. Philadelphia: The Annals of TheiAmerican Academy of POlitical and Social Science, 1965. Wahlike, John; Eulau, Heinz; Buchanan, William; and Ferguson, LeRoy. The Legislative System: Explorations in Legislative Behavior. Neinork: JOhn WileyE Sons, 1962. Waldo, Dwight. Perspectives on Administration. Birmingham: University of Alabama Press, 1956. Waltz, Kenneth. Man,pThe State,yand War: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 1959. Ward, Robert E., and Rustow, Dankwart A., eds. Political Modernization in Japan and Turkey. Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress,il964. Ward, Robert E. "Political Modernization and Political Culture in Japan." World Politics 15 (1963): 569-96. Weber, Max. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Translated and edited by Hans 1T. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press, 1958. . The Protestant Ethic and the Sprit of Capitalism. Translated‘byCTalcott‘Parsons. *New York:iCharles Scribner' 5 Sons, 1958. Weiner, Myron. The Politics of Scarcity: Public Pressure and Political Response in India. Chicago:‘lUniversity of ChicagoPress, 1962'. . “Political Integration and Political Development." In New Nations: The Problem of Political Development, edited by ' Karl Von Vorys. Philadelphia: The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1965. Welch, Claude E., Jr., ed. Political Modernization: A Reader in Com arative Political Chang_, Belmont,iCalif.:lWadsworth’Publishing 55.,1967. ' ' Whitaker, C. 5., Jr. "A Dysrhythmic Process of Political Change." World Politics 19 (1967): 190-217. 220 Whyte, William F. Man and Organization. Homewood, Ill.: The Dorsey Press, l959. Williams, Robin M., Jr. "The Sociological Theory of Talcott Parsons." In The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons: A Critical Examination, edited—by Max Black, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, l96l. Willner, Ann Ruth. “The Underdeveloped Study of Political Development." World Politics 16 (l964): 468-82. Winch, Peter. The Idea of a Social Science. New York: Humanities Press, 1958. Wiseman, H. V. Political Systems: Some Sociological Approaches. New York: Frederick'A. Praeger, l966. Wolf—Phillips, Leslie. "Metapolitics: Reflections on a 'Methodological Revolution'." Political Studies l2 (l964): 362-69. Wolin, Sheldon S. Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Theony, Boston: Little, Brown and'Co., 1960. Young, 0. R. "The Impact of General Systems Theory on Political Science." General Systems 9 (1964): 240-53. . Systems of Political Science. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,‘l968. Young, Roland, ed. Approaches to the Study of Politics. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1959.